Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:12135 comp.lang.c++:1469
Path: utzoo!utgpu!radio!brian@radio.astro.toronto.edu
From: brian@radio.astro.toronto.edu (Brian Glendenning)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Third public review of X3J11 C (a scientist speaks up)
Message-ID: <1203@radio.toronto.edu>
Date: 27 Aug 88 17:15:29 GMT
References: <64919@sun.uucp> <8358@smoke.ARPA> <4566@saturn.ucsc.edu> <8365@smoke.ARPA> <887@l.cc.purdue.edu> <1290@garth.UUCP> <1988Aug26.162706.22671@utzoo.uucp>
Sender: brian@radio.toronto.edu
Reply-To: brian@radio.astro.toronto.edu (Brian Glendenning)
Organization: Radio Astronomy, University of Toronto
Lines: 15
In-reply-to: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)

In article <1988Aug26.162706.22671@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>It's been done, it works well, and it's readily available:  C++.
 
Does C++ solve the oft-mentioned problems with C for numerical work? Are
vectorizing C++ compilers available on "crunching" machines, e.g. Cray, Convex
and Alliant? (In fact, are vectorizing _C_ compilers available for the latter
two)?

Do C and C++ compilers generally give about the same level of optimization,
i.e. are C compilers much more mature than C++ compilers.
-- 
Brian Glendenning                INTERNET - brian@radio.astro.toronto.edu
Radio Astronomy, U. Toronto          UUCP - {uunet,pyramid}!utai!radio!brian
+1 (416) 978-5558                  BITNET - glendenn@utorphys.bitnet