Your right, f77 is much more performant in intensive numerical computations than c or c++, at least on SGI (IRIX). For example, on a Indigo 2, a version of a code in f77 have a peak performance of 270 MFLOPS. The same code in c/c++ peak at 100 MFLOPS. Ok, maybe the c/c++ version could be more optimized but the fact is with f77 it's easy to obtain a very performant code, so why use c/c++ and lose a lot of time to write a obscur, tricky and slow program?
Dany Dionne Physics Department Laval University, Canada On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues wrote: > > > Sorry, I can't resist ;-) > > Me either. ;-) > > > fortran (77) is horrible. Well, it _was_ ok, Backus was a pioneer, etc. But > > we > > are in the end of the '90s (and I thought only *my* profs were forcing > > students to use it!) > > > > You will be much better writing your code in ANSI C (pointers aren't > > difficult > > once you get to know them). > > This is plainly untrue. f77 is a much simpler command set with no > dynamic allocation, etc. As a result, a f77 compiler can be optimized to > a much greater extent independent of the coding expertise of the > programmer, i.e. me. Thus, f77 is almost always faster than c or c++. > Also, in ansi C, there is no intrisic or optimized support for complex > numbers. People who actually do intensive simulations where compile time > is not a critical factor can still benefit from using f77. f90 is > another matter, meaning that I no nothing about its efficiency. > > Thanks. Syrus. > > -- > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Syrus Nemat-Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> UCSD Physics Dept. > > > > -- > TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > > -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
