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: dpb on 1 Jul 2010 10:19 Steve Fry wrote: > "rfengineer55" asked this question: >> 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# >> > > Since the CPUs on todays computers are not getting any faster (as was > promised 20 years ago), my main concern is what will crunch numbers faster. > > So which compiler or language is best suited for faster processing? As couched, the answer to that question is "maybe"... :) --
From: Robert Myers on 1 Jul 2010 11:01 Colin Paul Gloster wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Robert Myers sent: > |---------------------------------------------------| > |"[..] | > | | > |Which language is fastest? Assembly language, [..]| > |[..] | > | | > |[..]" | > |---------------------------------------------------| > > VHDL produces even faster implementations. Sometimes, if you are in a situation where an FPGA is a realistic option. My point was that raw speed depends more on the hardware and your knowledge of how to exploit it than it does on choice of programming language, assuming that the choices in programming language all compile to native code. This is not the place to discuss it, but, the need for a "portable assembler," such as c, is debatable, since so much now is x86. VHDL is not a realistic option for most applications programmers, but x86 assembler is. That's what the people I know who really want to write fast code use, and, as for me, I'd rather read well-commented assembler than the typical c program. Robert.
From: Dogstar on 1 Jul 2010 12:19 "Jugoslav Dujic" <jdujic(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:i0hu98$ocp$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On 29.06.2010. 23:22, Colin Watters wrote: >> Here is an even more dated paper (1893) comparing Fortran and some other >> languages: > > Jeez, I didn't know Fortran is *THAT* old :o) > > -- > Jugoslav > www.xeffort.com Real programmers do not need electronic computers to program in Fortran. From the _The Big Book of FORTRAN Misinformation_: In 1893 FORTRAN programmers (note the captialization) used steam-powered computers (called "engines"). The memory was made out of chips of ram horn (cf. RAM memory chips) that formed the cogs within the machine. The early FORTRAN language consisted only of three arithmetic operators ( -, *, and **), the unary minus (-), the assignment operator (=), the arithmetic IF instruction, and a SET/UNSET light instruction. Because of the limited number of arithmetic operators, addition was performed by subtracting the negative of a number and division by mulitplying by a value taken to the -1 power (cf. "Real programmers don't need division"). The program was transcribed into EBCDIC (Every Boy Can Decode IBM's Crazy) code and punched onto loom cards. The loom cards were used to re-initialized the cogs in the machine (cf. "character recognition unit"). --Dogstar
From: Lynn McGuire on 1 Jul 2010 12:33 >> You would not believe how many letters I get to Ms. Lynn McGuire. >> It is a clue that they are spam and do not even get opened. > > You should open some of them,they might not be spam. My full name is Michael Lynn McGuire. Anything important knows that first name. Thanks, Lynn
From: Lynn McGuire on 1 Jul 2010 12:43
> This is not the place to discuss it, but, the need for a "portable assembler," such as c, is debatable, since so much now is x86. > VHDL is not a realistic option for most applications programmers, but x86 assembler is. That's what the people I know who really want > to write fast code use, and, as for me, I'd rather read well-commented assembler than the typical c program. Actually, the most programmed platform nowadays is in the mobile devices, notably the smart phones, which are mostly the ARM cpu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture http://www.arm.com/about/newsroom/19720.php The ARM cpu is a RISC architecture and has it's own assembler language that is not x86 compatible. Lynn |