Fortran Vs C, C++, C#
in [Fortran]
|
Prev: practice online trading. platinum online trading. online trading worldwide. online trading which is best
Next: variant data type
From: rfengineer55 on 28 Jun 2010 18:25 What can Fortran do that C, C++, C# can't? Along similar lines where would Fortran be a superior chice over C, C+ +, or C# Jeff RF ENGINEER55
From: Lynn McGuire on 28 Jun 2010 19:03 > What can Fortran do that C, C++, C# can't? > > Along similar lines where would Fortran be a superior chice over C, C+ > +, or C# None that I know of. Here is a dated (1992) paper comparing F77, F90, C and C++ for engineering pgrograms: http://www.leshatton.org/Documents/JSX_0192.pdf Me, myself and I, we all prefer C++. I like strong typing and mandatory function prototypes. I also like function overloading. However, I find that the programmer is more important than the language. Good programmers can write good code in any language. Bad programmers can screw anything up. Lynn
From: Gib Bogle on 28 Jun 2010 19:17 rfengineer55 wrote: > What can Fortran do that C, C++, C# can't? > > Along similar lines where would Fortran be a superior chice over C, C+ > +, or C# > > Jeff > > RF ENGINEER55 I suggest a google search on that topic - there have been countless discussions/arguments over the years. I'd be surprised if you find many here who want to reprise them.
From: dpb on 28 Jun 2010 19:17 Lynn McGuire wrote: >> What can Fortran do that C, C++, C# can't? >> >> Along similar lines where would Fortran be a superior chice over C, C+ >> +, or C# > > None that I know of. Here is a dated (1992) paper comparing F77, > F90, C and C++ for engineering pgrograms: > http://www.leshatton.org/Documents/JSX_0192.pdf Far too dated and superficial in the facilities of current Fortran (see Richard Maine's comments in other thread where it was brought up) I think to be of any value any longer. > > Me, myself and I, we all prefer C++. I like strong typing and > mandatory function prototypes. I also like function overloading. "IMPLICIT NONE" :) Generic functions exist in Fortran since F90/95 and more oo-related stuff is in F03/F08. I as the same trio am adamantly in the opposite camp... :) I expect the above sentiment is largely owing to not having legacy F77 code that hasn't already been ported years ago to F95 compilers so that those features are now old hat. In your situation wherein you're forced to use a compiler last updated nearly 20 years ago now and a code base some of which dates to 40 years or more, it's not surprising that something newer looks shinier. :) > However, I find that the programmer is more important than the > language. Good programmers can write good code in any language. > Bad programmers can screw anything up. Amen...some of the best code I've ever read was written in Forth. It was almost as easy to read as a text. OTOH, some of the worst was also on the same project but by a far less adept coder. I've not doubt that same coders C or Fortran would also have been very poor as well. --
From: Richard Maine on 28 Jun 2010 19:32
dpb <none(a)non.net> wrote: .... > I expect the above sentiment is largely owing to not having legacy F77 > code In Lynn's case, I'd claim that the code was legacy F66 code that had not yet been fully ported to f77. It obviously also has a mixture of some newer features, but if she is just now getting rid of the Hollerith usage, I'd say that part reflects F66 legacy. Hollerith was not part of the F77 standard. There is an F77 Appendix describing Hollerith, but about the first thing the Appendix section of f77 says is "These Appendices are not part of American National Standard Programming Language Fortran..." -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain |