Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rutgers!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ur-valhalla!galaxy.ee.rochester.edu!davis
From: davis@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Al Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran versus C for numerical analysis
Message-ID: <1457@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu>
Date: 14 Sep 88 02:56:24 GMT
References: <1484@ficc.uu.net> <3502@lanl.gov>
Sender: usenet@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu
Reply-To: davis@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Al Davis)
Organization: UR Dept. of Electrical Engg, Rochester NY 14627
Lines: 17


In article <3502@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>From article <1484@ficc.uu.net>, by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva):
>> You mean dynamically sized arrays. Dynamically allocated but statically
>> sized arrays are implemented like any other array.
>
>No, I've never seen a C dynamically allocated multidimensional array
>that wasn't implemented as an array of pointers.

Well, what is wrong with an array of pointers?  Having worked with both, I
believe the array of pointers is the superior method.  It eliminates the
conformant array fudge.  It is usually faster.  It is more general.  It
works for strangely shaped sparse matrices.  Etc.

All the world is not a Cray.  Some of us have to work with finite resources.

Al Davis