Learning Fortran
in [Matlab]
|
From: dpb on 27 May 2010 09:21 James Tursa wrote: > dpb <none(a)non.net> wrote in message > <htk2h9$4rg$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>... >> >> The biggest difference will, I think, continue to be that won't be >> able to overload operators to make things like "*" be matrix multiply >> so will either have to write own generic interfaces for cases where >> can and not sure how far one can actually go in that regards. > > Yes, you can't overload "*" to be matrix multiply for built-in type > arrays like arrays of real, but you can overload "*" to be a matrix > multiply for a user-defined type, and you can always create a brand new > operator to do a matrix multiply so you could write something like > A.mmult.B to get a matrix multiply for real types A and B. In defense I > would note that other OOP languages like C++ don't allow overloading the > built-in operators for intrinsic types either. Wasn't intended as criticism or as disparaging Fortran vis a vis alternative existing languages, simply commenting to Stephen's observation on the morphing of Fortran towards Matlab re: array operations that there's not a way to make that as seamless as it is in ML simply owing to the limitations of existing syntax (at a bare minimum). --
From: Steve Amphlett on 27 May 2010 10:33 dpb <none(a)non.net> wrote in message <htlrob$mrn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>... > Wasn't intended as criticism or as disparaging Fortran vis a vis > alternative existing languages, simply commenting to Stephen's > observation on the morphing of Fortran towards Matlab re: array > operations that there's not a way to make that as seamless as it is in > ML simply owing to the limitations of existing syntax (at a bare minimum). Maybe it's veering tpwards BASIC? I remember doing (complex) matrix operations in HP Instrument BASIC 15 years ago.
From: dpb on 27 May 2010 14:03
Steve Amphlett wrote: > dpb <none(a)non.net> wrote in message > <htlrob$mrn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>... >> Wasn't intended as criticism or as disparaging Fortran vis a vis >> alternative existing languages, simply commenting to Stephen's >> observation on the morphing of Fortran towards Matlab re: array >> operations that there's not a way to make that as seamless as it is in >> ML simply owing to the limitations of existing syntax (at a bare >> minimum). > > Maybe it's veering tpwards BASIC? I remember doing (complex) matrix > operations in HP Instrument BASIC 15 years ago. HP-BASIC (and the shortlived TBASIC clone) are the only instances of BASIC that I'm aware of that ever supported complex. Of course, it had all kinds of other extensions as well HPIB control, embedded graphics, etc., etc., ... I did quite a number of systems on the HP-85 and other "desktops" like the 9845, etc. I recall one system for a DOE application had nearly $1M invested in the system w/ the computer, 9-track tape, standalone hard-disk drive and a 3582A spectrum analyzer. One could spend some serious money in a hurry when opening up the HP (or Tektronix). I forget the name of the instrumentation wideband analog tape drive; that puppy wasn't cheap, either... :) Fortran has passed any dialect of Basic I know in array operations w/ F90--there were almost no array operations in Visual Basic (Classic, I've not looked at the .Net versions which really did change quite a lot altho I don't think in that regard; more in the object-ness and net-centric manner and more towards C# flavor than F90+). -- |