Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.computers.vax
Subject: Number crunching
Message-ID: <[MX.LCS.MIT.EDU].932954.860713.KFL>
Date: Sun, 13-Jul-86 17:04:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: <[MX.LCS.MIT.EDU].932954.860713.KFL>
Posted: Sun Jul 13 17:04:57 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jul-86 23:17:37 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 13
Approved: info-vax@sri-kl.arpa


    From: cetron%utah-cbd@utah-cs.arpa (Ed Cetron)

    	On the other hand, C does this kind of stuff extremely well - but it
    is terrible for large brute force number crunching - and it is ludicrous to
    use it in that fashion....

  I have heard this several times, and I still don't understand it.  I
can see why C is better for systems programming than Fortran or Pascal,
but why is C supposedly worse at number crunching than Fortran?  What can
be done easily in Fortran that is difficult or impossible in C?

								...Keith