Fortran vs. C for numerical work

[Steve Summit]

Are you all still arguing about C and Fortran?  The discussion
has gone from responding to a few inappropriate criticisms of C
(which was reasonable) to trying to downplay examples in which
Fortran might well be superior (which is silly) to discussing
multiplication vs. memory access time (which belongs in
comp.arch, if anywhere).

In article <1990Dec4.011220.9302 at ccu.umanitoba.ca> salomon at ccu.umanitoba.ca (Dan Salomon) writes:
>In article <1990Dec1.232408.13365 at zoo.toronto.edu> henry at zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>Code maintenance is still better done on the Fortran.
>
>If you have to maintain the numerical libraries in FORTRAN, then you
>cannot really say that you are doing your numerical work in C.

Henry isn't saying you should do your numerical work in C, nor am I.
If your data structures are (as has recently been asserted) all
arrays, and you don't mind a few of Fortran's other weaknesses,
use it in good health.  C is better than a lot of people think it
is at numerical work, but it certainly isn't perfect, and C
apologists don't need to get up in arms when someone proposes an
example which Fortran can probably handle better.  Numerical work
has never been C's claim to fame, anyway.

                                            Steve Summit
                                            scs at adam.mit.edu