1 Oct
2024
1 Oct
'24
6:40 p.m.
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:13 AM <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote:
This goes back to the evolution thing. At the time, C
was a huge
step up from FORTRAN and assembly.
Certainly it's a step up (and a BIG step up) from assembly. But I'd say C
is a step sidewise from Fortran. An awful lot of HPTC programming involves
throwing multidimensional arrays around and C is not suitable for that.
-Paul W.
1 Oct
1 Oct
7:09 p.m.
New subject: C a step up from Fortran.
Hi Paul,
Arnold wrote:
I expect the structured-programming parts of C were being referred to as
a step up compared to Fortran 77. Ratfor was a step up in the same
direction.
Don't disagree about the HPTC side.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
This goes back to the evolution thing. At the
time, C was a huge
step up from FORTRAN and assembly.
Certainly it's a step up (and a BIG step up) from assembly.
But I'd say C is a step sidewise from Fortran. An awful lot of HPTC
programming involves throwing multidimensional arrays around and C is
not suitable for that. 
9:08 p.m.
New subject: [TUHS] Re: Minimum Array Sizes in 16 bit C (was Maximum)
Paul Winalski <paul.winalski(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:13 AM
<arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote:
In my head, FORTRAN is still FORTRAN 66, where there are no while
loops, or else statements, and the only data structure is the array.
For non-HPC stuff, C was a huge step up.
This goes back to the evolution thing. At the
time, C was a huge
step up from FORTRAN and assembly.
Certainly it's a step up (and a BIG step up) from assembly. But I'd say C
is a step sidewise from Fortran. An awful lot of HPTC programming involves
throwing multidimensional arrays around and C is not suitable for that.
-Paul W.
17
days inactive
17
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
arnold＠skeeve.com -
Paul Winalski -
Ralph Corderoy