Xref: utzoo comp.misc:2215 comp.lang.fortran:595
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!agate!garnet!weemba
From: weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: FORTRAN Horror
Message-ID: <8222@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 1 Apr 88 13:29:14 GMT
References: <17946@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Followup-To: comp.misc
Organization: Brahms Gang Posting Central
Lines: 24
In-reply-to: rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore)


In article <17946@watmath.waterloo.edu>, rwwetmore@watmath (Ross Wetmore)
writes, in response to Barry Shein:
>  Fortran currently does its job, does it reasonably well, and often more
>efficiently than the competition.

>  C may have the strings capability to print the final result, but Fortran
>has the FP capability to compute it. One should use the appropriate tool
>for the appropriate application, even if this means learning a second
>language.

Hear hear!  (I'm surprised at you Barry--you've said many wise things when
vi vs Emacs wars come up before.)

I once wrote an application that used the C curses windowing package to
get its results dynamically/interactively, allowing me to make simple mo-
vies using script, but whose innards were actually calls to run a remote
Cray job for some fantastic number crunching.

So of course the outer loop was in C, and the innards were in FORTRAN.
Having become an Emacs weenie in the meantime, I may very well write my
next such application's outer loop in Emacs Lisp!

But I don't want to learn FORTRAN 8X.  I really don't.

ucbvax!garnet!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720