>After reflection though, I've started to wonder about the wisdom of my >choice. Specifically (like RGB), I love the GSL library, and extending GSL >to fortran in an intro class is non-trivial. Additionally, most vendors >supply "fast" hardware libraries in C (I may be ignorant, but if a student >wants to call an AMD ACML fast-math function( >http://developer.amd.com/acml.jsp), or write a linear algebra function to >run on a graphics card(http://developer.nvidia.com/object/cuda.html), the >vendors seem to assume that you'll write the code in C).
Maybe they just need to understand the calling conventions between C and Fortran and how to use the compilers. >Also, and more relevant, I assume that most employers word-associate >"Fortran is to backwards as C is to competence". My view (please don't flame): Fortran 77 is backwards. C is backwards, when it comes to scientific codes. But it is simple (for me anyway). Fortran90 is not. In many respects much more appropriate for scientific codes than C. C++ is powerful but so huge you'll never get to the physics. I don't know about Fortran 200X. I suspect it'll be the way to go as soon as there are good compilers. It has objects and all that good stuff. End of my view. >So, I'm thinking about reworking the class to favor C, and fearing 3 weeks >of pointer and addressing hell. For those of you who teach scientific >computation (and also those of you who hire undergrads), I'd be grateful for >your thoughts. One specific question I have is what text covers scientific >programming and touches on MPI using the C language. Can't help with texts. I still use Luc Chamberland's Fortran 90 Reference Guide. An updated version might be good. Matt _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
