home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!news.larc.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sundance!moonshine!jac
- From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
- Subject: Re: C versus FORTRAN debate
- Message-ID: <jac.714336128@moonshine>
- Date: 20 Aug 92 18:42:08 GMT
- References: <1992Aug15.172219.2138@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> <92231.155237HBO043@DJUKFA11.BITNET> <py0mz+n@lynx.unm.edu> <1992Aug19.143047.18550@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
- Sender: news@sundance.llnl.gov (News Administrator)
- Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL
- Lines: 22
-
- jsvrc@rc.rit.edu (J A Stephen Viggiano) writes:
- > >Continuing to compare F77 to languages like C is a bit silly.
- > As is comparing FORTRAN 90 to languages like C. (Sorry, no ":-)".)
-
- I fail to see why this is silly. I think it is perfectly reasonable
- to compare C++ (a language "like C") and Fortran 90. There are a
- growing number of people doing scientific programming in C++. It
- shares many features with Fortan 90, and has many the F90 lacks
- (inheritance, pointers to functions, etc.) And it is widely available
- and more mature than F90 (in spite of the fact that there is an F90
- standard, and not yet an official ANSI C++ standard).
-
- I agree that rwars are useless, as are statements like J. Giles
- typical "C is totally worthless for anything" type remarks. But
- I think there are some valid reasons to compare F90 and C++.
-
- Jim
- --
- -------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
- James A. Crotinger Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
- jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808; L-630 \\ //---\ and are not neces-
- (510) 422-0259 Livermore CA 94550 \\/Amiga\ sarily those of LLNL.
-