Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!uhccux!munnari.oz.au!mimir!hugin!augean!idall From: idall@augean.OZ (Ian Dall) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: C vs. FORTRAN Message-ID: <558@augean.OZ> Date: 11 Aug 89 15:02:44 GMT References: <3288@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> <225800204@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <14523@bfmny0.UUCP> <14014@lanl.gov> Organization: Engineering Faculty, University of Adelaide, Australia Lines: 22 Reply-To: I think I'm going to regret this posting but... In article <14014@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > >be simple to represent. For numerical computations, Fortran does this >better than C. Consider, for example, a routine to do matrix multiply >on arbitrary sized and shaped matrices - both C an Fortran require the >programmer to express the iteration explicitly, but only C requires the >index calculations to be done explicitly. It's been a long while since I programmed in FORTRAN but I did do quite a lot of it once and I know of know way of handling arbitrary shaped multidimensioned arrays in FORTRAN. You are not thinking of a vendor specific enhancement are you? Or maybe one of these new fangled versions of FORTRAN do indeed have such support. LOTS of FORTRAN subroutines use indicies of the form I*XDIM + J and if that isn't explicit index calculation I don't know what is! -- Ian Dall life (n). A sexually transmitted disease which afflicts some people more severely than others. idall@augean.oz