home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Path: sparky!uunet!netnews!aplexus.jhuapl.edu!ygor
- From: ygor@aplexus.jhuapl.edu (Daniel E. White (F2C))
- Subject: Re: Fortran to C conversion: Why bother?
- Message-ID: <BxIEwH.F59@netnews.jhuapl.edu>
- Sender: usenet@netnews.jhuapl.edu
- Organization: Johns Hopkins U. Applied Physics Lab
- References: <1992Nov9.131601.167@gems.vcu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:53:05 GMT
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <1992Nov9.131601.167@gems.vcu.edu>, hleaves@gems.vcu.edu writes:
- |> I was wondering why anyone would bother using the f2c (or similar) program to
- |> translate fortran code directly into C. All you end up with is C code that
- |> exactly mimics the functionality of the original fortran code. Its not as if
- |> the translating program rewrites your algorithms to use the parts of C that
- |> make C really useful. Its just fortran code expressed in C. What's the point?
- |> If you're going to write programs in fortran, use a fortran compiler. If you
- |> want to use the features of C, learn C and use a C compiler. Using f2c doesnt
- |> give you any of the advantages of designing and writing the original program in
- |> C.
- |>
- |> -Hugh
-
- I second that. I've seen too much C source that looks like FORTRAN with
- semi-colons appended to the line endings.
-
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Dan White
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists
- elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
- Calvin (Bill Waterson)
-