DIfferences among Languages for Number Crunching?

[Kenneth L Moore]

In article <9003021955.AA28774 at euler.Berkeley.EDU> ndeng at 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 at 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