Hi, there > > Sorry, I can't resist ;-) > > Me either. ;-)
who can ;) > > 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. hmm... f77 is just a bit simplier, not very much. And dynamic allocation is performed in C by library (aka external) function thus is not affecting any optimizations at all. The key problem here is aliasing. FYI, C suffers quite a bit from this problem, but Fortran is not aliasing free language either. And last there are tons of languages with dynamic allocation and other gudies but without any aliasing problems from the beginning. > 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. don't get it. Compiler itself can be optimized ? You're talking about Fortran compiler itself written in Fortran? > Thus, f77 is almost always faster than c or c++. nope for tons of problem. f77 lacks support for pointers and data structures (like struct in C) which can be a big problems for lots of code. > 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. the main advantage is tons of ready to run f77 code YMMV OK -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
