Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!lamonts@M5.Sdsc.EDU From: lamonts@M5.Sdsc.EDU (Steve Lamont) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Aesthetics, FORTRASH, and C. Message-ID: <11524@brl-adm.ARPA> Date: 28 Jan 88 17:27:07 GMT Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA Lines: 63 Dave Sill quotes me as saying: > In article <88012145556.2040246a@Sds.Sdsc.Edu> Steve Lamont > writes: > >I don't see the lack of indirection as a major disadvantage in the type of > >programs FORTRAN is suited to. Perhaps I am missing the point here. Can > >someone please illuminate the subject? > Perhaps you're missing the *pointer*. :-) Good point (:-)... but the key phrase is "the type of programs FORTRAN is suited to..." There are whole bunches of things that FORTRAN is suited to that C is not, and vice versa. I agree that it would be nice to have dynamically allocated arrays in FORTRAN but I think that, bearing in mind the gawdawful hassle handling multiply dimensioned arrays in C, (KEY PHRASE COMING UP...) that, for the purposes that it was designed to address, FORTRAN, by and large, has it right. (FLAME RETARDANT: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT C HAS IT WRONG.... IT JUST MEANS THAT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO DO TWO DIFFERENT THINGS) > >... In fact, in > >light of some other comments that I've seen on this group, the construction > > > > call bar > > > >is slightly more aestheticly pleasing than > > > > bar(); > To coin a phrase: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think > "bar();" is more in keeping with the philosophy of C, hence more > aesthetic. No argument (pun intended...), as long as we're talking about C. This was only a side comment, directed at the null statement discussion that has been going on for the past week. > >[my comments about named common and logical grouping of external data > >references] > That's funny, if you had asked me to list of what I think are > Fortran's 10 biggest mistakes, COMMON blocks would probably be at the > top. They are probably the single largest cause of suicide among > Fortran maintenance programmers, although implicit variable > declarations might be close. Howcome? I've been programming in FORTRAN for about 10 years, both writing my own code and maintaining others' and find it useful to know which program unit (subroutine or function) has the capability of diddling with what external variable and which program doesn't. Are you saying that lumping all externals into one pool is *more* maintainable? How so? How else do you suggest? I'm genuinely interested. But, then, again, I happen to like implicit declarations, too... ;-) <---- flamers... note smiley guy... spl ---------------------------------------- Internet: LAMONTS@SDS.SDSC.EDU Bitnet: LAMONTS@SDSC Span: SDSC::LAMONTS (27.1) USPS: Steve Lamont San Diego Supercomputer Center P.O. Box 85608 San Diego, CA 92138 AT&T: 619.534.5126