C vs. Fortran (half OT questions)
in [Fortran]
|
Prev: gcc4.4: f951: warning: command line option "-MM" is valid for C/C++/Java/ObjC/ObjC++ but not for Fortran
Next: Bad dependency relation for "gfortran"
From: teg on 11 Aug 2010 12:36 Den Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:26:35 +0200 skrev Vincenzo Mercuri: > 1 -- is there any reason not to learn Fortran (a new language for me) > and focus on C (and C numerical libraries) potentialities? Learn both and learn how to call Fortran from C and C from Fortran. > 2 -- is Fortran considered the best choice in this field only because > of its construct and syntax that makes easier to handle > mathematical entities? No, mostly because the code (and I mean Fortran77) is prettier :) > 4 -- what about performance? would you bet on C or Fortran? :-) > Same. For real performance critical applications you want handcoded assembly libraries. > > Thank you in advance. /Jörgen
From: Dan Nagle on 11 Aug 2010 14:54 Hello, On 2010-08-11 10:40:04 -0400, Paul van Delst <paul.vandelst(a)noaa.gov> said: > I realise that - my reply was a bit curmudgeonly. In my defense, I > didn't seriously start asking about full-f2003 > support until a couple of years ago - at which point I did give my > $0.02 worth on what I wanted things I would like > implemented first. > > It's now half-way through 2010. And there still aren't any full and complete C++ 03 implementations to my knowledge. I'd be happy to learn there is one. Full and complete C99 implementations only appeared in 2006 or so. I'm told the only reason they appeared at all was due to Linux branding requirements. But I haven't checked for myself. The only language I know where the vendors release with full support for a new version relatively quickly is Ada. There are Ada 2005 compilers. > I'm (well, my work is) paying maintenance and license fees on various > compilers so I don't think it's unreasonable to > expect implementation of a 5 year old standard to be available (we'll > assume the year 2003 is not when the clock starts > ticking). It was formally published in the fourth quarter of 2004. > To be honest, all I would like to see/hear from vendors is something > like "we will be releasing a fully compliant > Fortran2003 compiler for <insert platforms here> in version XX in 1st > quarter 201?" (insert your own digit for the "?"). What vendor wants to kill compiler sales until "201?" ? oo -- Cheers! Dan Nagle
From: Lynn McGuire on 11 Aug 2010 14:55 > I've been always told of the C language as the best choice > to accomplish any kind of task in numerical algorithms implementation. > I'd like to do some serious programming in numerical analysis and > I'd like to read some opinion about whether C has too many limitations > or it is far a better choice than Fortran is. I have some questions > that may seem trivial and not topical to this group (I've already > posted the same questions in comp.lang.c). Here they are: I would use C++ instead C. I would also check on the potential platforms that you will be developing on or porting to and make sure that there is a good fortran vendor there. For instance, the iPhone only supports 4 compilers: Objective C, C++, C and Java. Any proprietary environments can be very limiting. Lynn
From: Nick Maclaren on 11 Aug 2010 15:45 In article <i3url4$dst$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Dan Nagle <dannagle(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >Full and complete C99 implementations only appeared in 2006 or so. >I'm told the only reason they appeared at all was due >to Linux branding requirements. But I haven't checked for myself. Eh? I don't know who told you that, but it's unmitigated bollocks. The situation is complicated by the fact that a minimal C99 compiler isn't much more than a C89 one with a lot more library functions, but one that implements the whole language (including the optional and effectively optional features) is much larger. So it depends critically on what you mean by "full and complete". When I last checked, in 2006, there was one (1) such compiler - Sun ONE Studio 11 on Solaris 10 (and possibly only on SPARC). There were repeated claims of others, but they were a bit like the Norfolk village of Diss (i.e. when you approach it, the village Diss appears). There may have been one, of course. I am unconvinced that Linux branding means anything, but let that pass. However, gcc is NOT a C99 conforming compiler, though it has several C99 features, and the last I heard was that there was no intent to make it one. As I said, there is no customer interest. That's documented, somewhere. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: steve on 11 Aug 2010 16:28
On Aug 11, 12:45 pm, n...(a)gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote: > In article <i3url4$ds...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Dan Nagle <danna...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > >Full and complete C99 implementations only appeared in 2006 or so. > >I'm told the only reason they appeared at all was due > >to Linux branding requirements. But I haven't checked for myself. > > Eh? I don't know who told you that, but it's unmitigated bollocks. > > The situation is complicated by the fact that a minimal C99 compiler > isn't much more than a C89 one with a lot more library functions, > but one that implements the whole language (including the optional > and effectively optional features) is much larger. So it depends > critically on what you mean by "full and complete". > > When I last checked, in 2006, there was one (1) such compiler - Sun > ONE Studio 11 on Solaris 10 (and possibly only on SPARC). There > were repeated claims of others, but they were a bit like the Norfolk > village of Diss (i.e. when you approach it, the village Diss appears). > There may have been one, of course. > > I am unconvinced that Linux branding means anything, but let that > pass. However, gcc is NOT a C99 conforming compiler, though it has > several C99 features, and the last I heard was that there was no > intent to make it one. As I said, there is no customer interest. > That's documented, somewhere. The C standard specifies both the compiler and the C library. GCC's only concern is the compiler. The developers of glibc are worried about the library. http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html Note, the only item marked broken for the compiler is near and dear to your heart. -- steve |