Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site zuring.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!zuring!dik
From: dik@zuring.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: What language do you use for scientific programming?
Message-ID: <243@zuring.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 01:27:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: zuring.243
Posted: Fri Sep 20 01:27:18 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 05:53:51 EDT
References: <909@oddjob.UUCP> <3130001@csd2.UUCP> <59@opus.UUCP>
Reply-To: dik@zuring.UUCP (Dik T. Winter)
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 24
Apparently-To: rnews@mcvax.LOCAL

In article <59@opus.UUCP> rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) writes:
(Again, he did not write this...)
>> Algol 68 is the right language for scientific programming. Rich operators,
>> good sizing of types (modes) i.e. long long real x; (probably H format on 
>> a Vax). Complex data type supported. Ease of algorithm specification. 
>> I cannot see why anyone needs anything else. It has everthing C does and more.
>
>It has everything C does except available implementations, ...
Yes but what is the reason, lack of imagination from compiler writers?
We have been using a truly marvellous compiler since about 1971, supplied
by CDC Nederland for CDC Cyber systems.  Also in the UK there are lots of
compilers for other systems.  It appears to be the same as with Algol 60,
popular in Europe, not used in the US.
>
>Don't misunderstand me--it's a marvelous language design (except for the
>`long' and `short' qualifiers, which are the same screwup as C, FOOTRAN,
>etc.)
No, it's worse than C etc, because you won't know what is implemented.
>
>   ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.
Right.
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland
UUCP: {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!dik


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com