Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!columbia!cubsun!shenkin
From: shenkin@cubsun.BIO.COLUMBIA.EDU (Peter Shenkin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran versus C for numerical analysis
Message-ID: <75@cubsun.BIO.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Date: 6 Sep 88 00:48:12 GMT
References: <893@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> <3064@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: shenkin@cubsun.UUCP (Peter Shenkin)
Organization: Dept. of Biology, Columbia Univ., New York, NY
Lines: 19

+ In article <3064@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
+ 
+ >From article <893@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, 
+ >  by fouts@lemming.nas.nasa.gov.nas.nasa.gov (Marty Fouts):
+ >> I am looking for opinions of experienced
+ >> numerical/scientific/engineering programmers along the lines of why
+ >> Fortran is a better language than C for numerical analysis.
+ 
+ >The fact that C parenthesis don't force execution order is sufficient
+ >to exclude C from use in some instances.....

I believe that under the new C standard, parentheses will force order of
evaluation.  This replaces a previous provision that used unary + for the
same purpose.
-- 
*******************************************************************************
Peter S. Shenkin, Department of Chemistry, Barnard College, Columbia University
New York, NY   10027         Tel: (212) 280-5517 (work);  (212) 829-5363 (home)
shenkin@cubsun.bio.columbia.edu    shenkin%cubsun.bio.columbia.edu@cuvmb.BITNET