Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!ukma!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!tness1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Fortran versus C for numerical anal Message-ID: <1612@ficc.uu.net> Date: 26 Sep 88 13:33:53 GMT References: <1584@ficc.uu.net> <4151@lanl.gov> Organization: SCADA Lines: 25 In article <4151@lanl.gov>, jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > 1) It rasies the spectre of aliasing in contexts where it doesn't exist > if the pointer isn't user accessible. For this reason, things that > would otherwise vectorize or unroll for pipelining must be done by > the compiler as if the possible aliasing has actually occurred. You use Fortran and you complain about aliasing? What about common blocks, call-by-reference to constants, equivalence, and all the other horrible places that Fortran can bite you on aliasing. Even *without* worrying about optimisation. > 2) It clutters up it's scope with the name of something I don't need > explicit access to. This increases the possibility of another > variable, whose name is misspelled, going undetected. You use Fortran and you complain about misspellings going undetected? This language has more of a problem with typos than any other just because of implicit typing of variables. I think that this 'feature' of Fortran by itself, counts far more against it than *anything* you can call up against C. I said before I wasn't going to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. I'm afraid I lied. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation. "Have you hugged U your wolf today?" peter@ficc.uu.net