Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!hc!beta!a!jlg
From: jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: FORTRAN horrors
Message-ID: <549@a.UUCP>
Date: 31 Mar 88 00:20:50 GMT
References: <497@amethyst.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.
Lines: 43
Summary: Not there

In article <497@amethyst.UUCP>, chris@spock (Chris Ott) writes:
> 
> 
>      When was the last time you programmed in C? If I remember correctly, C
> does have dynamic array dimensioning. I can't say for sure because I don't
> often use arrays with more than one subscript. Not only that, but C, with
> its alloc() and free() routine can dynamically allocate memory while the
> program is running, something I've never seen Fortran do.

1) C has a VERY bad syntax for multidimensioned arrays.  Most systems
programmers don't need them, so they don't care.  Few scientific programs 
go WITHOUT at least one multidimensional array.  Fortran looks much
better in this regard (literally LOOKS better).

2) C doesn't really have arrays at all - they get turned into pointers
immediately.  This failing was the subject of an article by no less than 
P. J. Plauger a short time back (Programming Faux Pas, _Computer Language_,
April 1987).

3) Most Fortran environments have a way of dynamically allocating memory.
Some use pointers, others have a language extension, others simply use
out-of-bounds array subscripting.  Fortran 8x requires this capability.

> 
>      Not intrinsically, but in practice, C is a lot more portable than Fortran.
> I've had no trouble transporting C programs between UNIX machines and very
> little trouble transporting them between non-UNIX machines. [...]

I've never had any trouble transporting Fortran either.  I just don't use any
features that I know don't port well, and porting is no problem.  C is the
same - most C programmers quickly learn which things don't port well and
simply don't use them!  Don't chalk something up as a feature of the 
language when it's really due to familiarity of the programmer.

>      Oh, I almost forgot. Please redirect any responses to this article to
> comp.lang.fortran. The comp.arch people are beginning to get upset, for good
> reason.
>
No!! don't forward to comp.lang.fortran!!  Forward to comp.lang.religion
if you must :-).   comp.lang.fortran is NOT the place to discuss the 
deficiencies of C as a scientific language (or its advantages either).

J. Giles
Los Alamos