Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:1396 comp.lang.fortran:596
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pacbell!att-ih!alberta!calgary!radford
From: radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: FORTRAN Horror (speed of FORTRAN compilers vs. Pascal, etc.)
Message-ID: <1508@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>
Date: 31 Mar 88 20:31:45 GMT
References: <24861@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <1135@pembina.UUCP> <2596@pdn.UUCP> <552@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Ab.
Lines: 23

In article <552@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP>, anw@nott-cs.UUCP writes:

>     While I'm on the subject, a correspondent tells me of vague memories
>     that Pascal and Algol also benchmarked faster than Fortran on the CDC
>     7600, again with very little effect on the general population of users.
>     Rings a bell with me too -- anyone able to confirm or deny?

Back in 74 to 78, I used a CDC 6400, which is instruction set compatible 
with a 7600. The FORTRAN compiler was certainly far better than the Pascal 
and Algol 60 compilers for numeric computations. The difference was
likely even larger for th 7600, with its multiple functional units, exploited
by the FORTRAN compiler more than Pascal or Algol.

However... I can well beleive that most FORTRAN programs ran slower
than they would have if written in Pascal. Most FORTRAN programs are
not dominated by numeric computations. The FORTRAN IO system was
abysmally slow, due to the need to interpret formats at run time, plus
general brain damage. I find it rather amusing how scientists and
engineers insist of using FORTRAN for "numeric" applications which are
90% IO, data conversion, and control, applications for which it is
wholely inappropriate, *especially* if you are not a professional 
programmer.

   Radford Neal