Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:11268 comp.lang.fortran:902 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!lll-tis!oodis01!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes From: wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Mathematical expression syntax (was: C vs. Fortran) Summary: You have a good point, but... Message-ID: <97@obie.UUCP> Date: 9 Jul 88 18:51:18 GMT References: <20506@beta.lanl.gov> <559@lanl.gov> <20509@beta.lanl.gov> <895@garth.UUCP> Organization: the Well of Souls Lines: 29 In article <895@garth.UUCP>, walter@garth.UUCP (Walter Bays) writes: > I think not. Keep the clearer, more maintainable code. Take one > year's maintenance on the 780 and buy a new workstation to replace it. > (It doesn't even have to be ours, though of course that's preferable > :-) Then you get run times better than 3:1, and continue saving on > both hardare and software maintenance. In general, I agree with you, but in this case, the speed was really needed. The hardware was firmly fixed - this was a government contract, and the computer was GFE - Government Furnished Equipment. End of argument about what to run it on. The CPU simulator was just a small part of a simulator for a particular type of powerful rocket with a very accurate guidance system (you can guess all you want what it REALLY was :-), and the rest of the simulation was written by physicists who readily admitted they were not good programmers. The overall simulation times were in the neighborhood of 100:1 to 250:1. When it takes 5 hours to simulate a 30-minute flight, every little bit of speed helps. It would not do to have the CPU simulator making it 3 or 4 times slower yet! The whole project would have been much better in the long run if they had added one good Fortran programmer to the physical body simulator - perhaps making it 2 or 3 times faster. -- {hpda, uwmcsd1}!sp7040!obie!wes "Happiness lies in being priviledged to work hard for long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing." -- Robert A. Heinlein --