Re: just how bad is Fortran?
Your right, f77 is much more performant in intensive numerical
computations than c or c++, at least on SGI (IRIX). For example, on a
Indigo 2, a version of a code in f77 have a peak performance of 270
MFLOPS. The same code in c/c++ peak at 100 MFLOPS. Ok, maybe the c/c++
version could be more optimized but the fact is with f77 it's easy to
obtain a very performant code, so why use c/c++ and lose a lot of time to
write a obscur, tricky and slow program?
Dany Dionne
Physics Department
Laval University, Canada
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I can't resist ;-)
>
> Me either. ;-)
>
> > fortran (77) is horrible. Well, it _was_ ok, Backus was a pioneer, etc. But we
> > are in the end of the '90s (and I thought only *my* profs were forcing
> > students to use it!)
> >
> > You will be much better writing your code in ANSI C (pointers aren't difficult
> > once you get to know them).
>
> This is plainly untrue. f77 is a much simpler command set with no
> dynamic allocation, etc. As a result, a f77 compiler can be optimized to
> a much greater extent independent of the coding expertise of the
> programmer, i.e. me. Thus, f77 is almost always faster than c or c++.
> Also, in ansi C, there is no intrisic or optimized support for complex
> numbers. People who actually do intensive simulations where compile time
> is not a critical factor can still benefit from using f77. f90 is
> another matter, meaning that I no nothing about its efficiency.
>
> Thanks. Syrus.
>
> --
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Syrus Nemat-Nasser <syrus@ucsd.edu> UCSD Physics Dept.
>
>
>
> --
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
> debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
> Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
>
>
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: