Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!zodiac!joyce!sri-unix!garth!walter From: walter@garth.UUCP (Walter Bays) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: C vs. FORTRAN Message-ID: <937@garth.UUCP> Date: 12 Jul 88 18:06:11 GMT References: <3136@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <225800038@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <892@garth.UUCP> <774@naucse.UUCP> Reply-To: walter@garth.UUCP (Walter Bays) Organization: INTERGRAPH (APD) -- Palo Alto, CA Lines: 26 In article <774@naucse.UUCP> rrr@naucse.UUCP (Bob Rose ) writes: >Lets see malloc or alloca[1] in fortran without some low level routines >in some other language. Also recursion, yes you can make your own stack >but how big do you make this stack? Most large applications I've seen on UNIX have been 99% Fortran + 1% C, or 100% C. Most large applications I've seen on other OS's have been 99% Fortran + 1% Assembly Language. I don't like to read or write Fortran, but the fact that it's inappropriate for certain low level routines doesn't change the fact that it's appropriate for some applications. Perhaps Fortran would be a less viable alternative were it not for assistance from C. I've also seen time-critical applications that were 80% Fortran and 20% Assembler. (Fortran didn't give enough low-level control in the time-critical sections.) These applications were nightmares that locked the users into obsolete hardware and operating systems, because the cost to convert was too high. Though the low-level hardware dependencies will always be difficult, 80% Fortran + 20% C is much more portable, making Fortran a safer choice for the application. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My opinions are my own. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear. E-Mail route: ...!pyramid!garth!walter (415) 852-2384 USPS: Intergraph APD, 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto, California 94303 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------