Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:12139 comp.lang.c++:1470
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Third public review of X3J11 C (a scientist speaks up)
Message-ID: <1988Aug27.231756.15545@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
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> <1203@radio.toronto.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 88 23:17:56 GMT

In article <1203@radio.toronto.edu> brian@radio.astro.toronto.edu (Brian Glendenning) writes:
>Does C++ solve the oft-mentioned problems with C for numerical work?

Probably not completely, although its extensibility makes it better than
C (for example, defining new kinds of numbers is simple).

>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)?

The answer is probably "not yet".  However, the same comment would apply
to any other proposed solution to the problems.  The language itself is
pretty much right; getting the implementations right is important, but
is a separate problem.

>Do C and C++ compilers generally give about the same level of optimization,
>i.e. are C compilers much more mature than C++ compilers.

Most existing C++ implementations are based on C compilers to some degree,
so they're pretty much comparable.
-- 
Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu