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: Lynn McGuire on 29 Jun 2010 19:23 > I was wondering what fortran 77 you are using or have used? We use Open Watcom F77, C and C++ for developing our simulator kernel. ( www.openwatcom.org ) We moved to the Watcom compilers in 1992 after using the NDP 386 compilers for several years. The NDP compilers were horrible, they generated assembly language which I had to hand tweak to fix bugs in the near/far jumps. We will be moving to another compiler within a year or so. Either Visual Studio C++ or maybe the Absoft fortran compiler. > What would you suggest for a good reference book for cross > referencing differences between the various Fortran extensions? Dont know of one. The Open Watcom F77 language manual ( http://www.openwatcom.org/ftp/manuals/current/f77lr.pdf ) has an appendix A entitled "A. Open Watcom FORTRAN 77 Extensions to Standard FORTRAN 77". > I normally rely on the"compatibility" settings in my compiler, but I > rather have a moe active understanding about what's being converted. We use /save and /xfloat. /save means save local variables between subroutine calls and initialize them to zero. /xfloat means convert all single precision floating constants and expressions to double precision. Lynn
From: Lynn McGuire on 29 Jun 2010 20:38 >> Almost without exception, the language you understand best. Unless you >> are doing time-critical stuff (weather forecasting, missile >> interception, etc.) your time (and the time of the guy who has to >> understand your code next year) is much more valuable than the >> computer time. Almost always, computer programs should be viewed >> as human-to-human communication. It's a good idea to plan on at >> least one of those humans as being not real bright and to go for >> clarity. > > All too often the not too bright guy is the original author about 20 minutes later! > > As in, Why did I do that? Or worse yet, the original author 10 years later <g> ! "There is no way I wrote that crappy code". Lynn
From: robin on 29 Jun 2010 22:12 "Phillip Helbig---undress to reply" <helbig(a)astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote in message news:i0c02e$cb0$2(a)online.de... | In article <i0b9nl$809$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Lynn McGuire | <lmc(a)winsim.com> writes: | | > 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. | | Fortran programmers can write Fortran in any language. :-) You can say that again! A good example is ACM Algorithm 306.
From: robin on 29 Jun 2010 22:28 "Louis Krupp" <lkrupp_nospam(a)indra.com.invalid> wrote in message news:Wu-dnaeciddxx7fRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)indra.net... | On 6/29/2010 2:13 PM, rfengineer55 wrote: | <snip> | > It | > would appear from what's been posted here, that there really isn't | > anything Fortran can do than the others can't. | | Or vice versa. It's a question of how well it can be done, and how easy it is to do.
From: robin on 29 Jun 2010 22:31
"Louis Krupp" <lkrupp_nospam(a)indra.com.invalid> wrote in message news:A6ydnb_IMP5nzrfRnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d(a)indra.net... | In C++, you can write a class to implement a multidimensional array. Or | you can download a Boost library: | | http://www.boost.org | | I've read some of the documentation. At first glance, this appears to | be nontrivial. I suspect that simple cases would be easier to code in | Fortran. | | FWIW, ALGOL let the programmer specify lower bounds long before Fortran. And PL/I, BASIC, etc, etc. |