Re: Who uses clapack?

From: James Giles (jamesgiles_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 12/11/04 

Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 05:53:10 GMT

Jentje Goslinga wrote:
> James Giles wrote:
...
> > I still don't see the part where it's originally intended
> > to interop with, say, Ada, Pascal, Lisp, Haskell, and yes: Fortran.
>
> You are right, that part doesnt exist; I had forgotten that
> but what's the difference, isn't C almost the same as Fortran?

Well, not really. Historically is was not at all infrequent to find
that many languages could not interoperate easily with C, even
though they could easily interoperate with each-other. C often
tended to be diffferent, sometimes for no discerable reason: just
to be different I guess.

Also you mentioned "name decoration" or "name mangling" as
it's more often called. (It is, of course, the spawn of the devil.)
That's one of the cases in which many other languages could
interoperate, and no "mangling" was needed, while C
implementations, again often for no real reason, insisted
that non-C names *had* to be mangled. I never saw name
mangling (and I did site support of production linkers) before
C entered general service.

Note: I understand the reason for name mangling, but that doesn't
mean I have to like it. It's a lazy implementation choice that shifts
some of the burden elsewhere, including the users, when it should
be managed more cleanly by the compilers and linkers. 

-- 
J. Giles
"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies."   --  C. A. R. Hoare

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Who uses clapack?
    ... > James Giles wrote: ... though they could easily interoperate with each-other. ... sometimes for no discerable reason: ... mangling before ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: compilation problem with module function interface definition
    ... > James Giles wrote: ... an external mangles the data. ... to how many decimal equivalent digits does the mangling ... no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: complex arithmetics
    ... James Giles wrote in message ... ... |>> This doesn't work because there is a spurious reference ... |> reason for NaN being raised. ... That's your opinion. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRANs future
    ... > James Giles wrote: ... for the relevant components. ... My definition is that the language has all the capabilities ... >> ability to interoperate with C is part of ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Pi.
    ... > James Giles wrote: ... >>> can be elided for the convenience of the compiler as opposed to ... All the more reason not to change them *after* you've double-checked ... no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)