On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:00:44 +0200, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
On 03.12.2011 15:30, so wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 22:58:32 +0200, Paulo Pinto <pj...@progtools.org>
wrote:
Ah ok, I thought you were starting a "C above all" thread. :)
Well that would not be a discussion, would it?
Anyone against it? C is above all for the things it was developed,
simple as that.
I'm against it. C's machine model is outdated, and it has never
performed as well on floating point code as Fortran does. It gets
trounced by a language designed for 1950's computers!!!
Neither C nor C++ designed for scientific purposes. AFAIK this is
explicitly stated in both their bibles.
I find it quite bizarre that both C and Fortran are used as if they were
absolute performance standards, a theoretical upper bound.
It is not the point i was trying to make. We know in practice, they both
are the best performing languages on their kind.
Can one make a better language? Absolutely! Have we seen one yet? Not
really. And this is the main reason i was arguing all along
regarding backwards compatibility to C. Potential to make a better
language is big but taboos are much bigger.
