Re: Fortran vs. C (was Re: Ken & Klaus.)
From: Dan Bloomquist (EXTRApublic21_at_lakeweb.com)
Date: 09/21/04
- Next message: Old Man: "Re: what is the relation between force and energy?"
- Previous message: rsm109_at_york.ac.uk: "Re: XP_ A standard No More"
- In reply to: Harry Conover: "Re: Fortran vs. C (was Re: Ken & Klaus.)"
- Next in thread: Christopher Browne: "Re: Fortran vs. C"
- Reply: Christopher Browne: "Re: Fortran vs. C"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:37:38 GMT
Harry Conover wrote:
>
> Amazing, stupidly I hadn't realized that Fortran was still used, given
> that the last time I saw it was back around 1970! :-) Still, as a
> physicist I always like it as a turn-the-crank number cruncher.
>
> Seriously speaking though, I really don't understand how anyone
> familiar with both Fortran and C can compare the two without cracking
> a smile. Fortran is a high level application oriented language, while
> C is a relatively low-level systems implementation language.
I don't understand, why compare Fortran with C. C is a rather archaic
language, IMHO. Most modern programing is done with C++. And now that
most compilers are ANSI compliant where templates are concerned, you can
use expression templates freely. This combines the high level feel with
that low level speed. The best of both worlds. The learning curve of C++
may be steeper but the payoff is handsome, available libraries for one.
>
> Harry C.
Best, Dan.
-- http://lakeweb.net http://ReserveAnalyst.com No EXTRA stuff for email.
- Next message: Old Man: "Re: what is the relation between force and energy?"
- Previous message: rsm109_at_york.ac.uk: "Re: XP_ A standard No More"
- In reply to: Harry Conover: "Re: Fortran vs. C (was Re: Ken & Klaus.)"
- Next in thread: Christopher Browne: "Re: Fortran vs. C"
- Reply: Christopher Browne: "Re: Fortran vs. C"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|