Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!yahoo From: yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: DIfferences among Languages for Number Crunching? Message-ID: <22706@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Date: 4 Mar 90 21:02:38 GMT References: <9003021955.AA28774@euler.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore) Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services Lines: 49 In article <9003021955.AA28774@euler.Berkeley.EDU> ndeng@EULER.BERKELEY.EDU writes: =>I have a question about which language is the "best" for scientific =>computation (read: number crunching), especially for execution speed. =>N. Deng =>ndeng@euler.berkeley.edu =>Standard Disclaimer Applies. Here is a posting that I just made to sci.math.num-analysis. It was a summary of mail I got in response to posting the question, "What language do YOU use for numerical analysis?" In the case of FORTRAN and C (the major languages mentioned), I tried to include a summary of what people thought were the advantages of their choice. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 APL2 1 Assembler 1 ALGOL 1 BASIC 1 Common Lisp 1 Common Lisp Object System 13 FORTRAN 15 C 4 C++ 1 Bliss 1 Forth 4 Pascal 1 Modula-2 1 S FORTRAN - complex numbers, arrays at 1, existing debugged code such as Eispak & Linpac, bounds checking, supercomputing, portability, speed of execution, does not promote float to double, compact code, double double precision, the way arrays are handled, intrinsic functions such as 2**3.2 MAX and Min, each variable does not have to be declared C - systems interface, algorithm translation (structures), portability, allows for development of a user friendly front end, compact code, speed of development, speed of execution, readability, dynamic memory allocation, flexible. -- I don't yell and I don't tell and I'm grateful as hell: Benny Hill