Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!gatech!hubcap!fpst
From: fpst@hubcap.UUCP (Steve Stevenson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran versus C for numerical analysis
Message-ID: <2936@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: 5 Sep 88 12:35:53 GMT
References: <349@quintus.UUCP>
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Lines: 30

From article <349@quintus.UUCP>, by ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe):
> In article <2932@hubcap.UUCP> fpst@hubcap.UUCP (Steve Stevenson) writes:
>>From article <344@quintus.UUCP>, by ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe):
> But it is not the case that all Fortran code is written by, or with the
> aid of, numerical analysts.  ...

Richard:

	As usual, you and I are not communicating.  The question at
hand is whether or not Fortran should be the way it is for (see Subject)
numerical analysis.  I agree that much fortran is written by not
NAs.  I also believe, given your background, you will agree that there
are two problems: getting physicists to write proper numerical code and
not impeding NAs from writing proper code.  Why doesn't Quintus take
that up --- should be a straight forward problem if PRESS ever is released
:-).  I certainly respect your opinion.

	It seems a poor choice of action to perpetuate the use of
Fortran for the business folks and for comp. sci. majors who do not
have the background to translate from their very limited understanding
of the axiomatic reals into the real world of floating point.  The
myth that anybody can code was debunk quite a while ago.



-- 
Steve Stevenson                            fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu
(aka D. E. Stevenson),                     fpst@prism.clemson.csnet
Department of Computer Science,            comp.parallel
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906 (803)656-5880.mabell