8 Feb
2010
8 Feb
'10
4:32 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: mcguire at neurotica.com
Sent: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:58:57 -0500
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog
On Feb 8, 2010, at 6:50 PM, N0body H0me wrote:
Here, here. The thing that impressed me about FORTRAN (well, as
as science major, anyway) was that it could do complex numbers as
a *NATIVE* datatype!! Now, I know for you OOP and C++ guys, custom,
exotic datatypes are a dime a dozen. But in 1980, I was sure glad
I could do complex math without all of the extra baggage that would
have been necessary if I had to use, say, BASIC-Plus.
Yeah, but how often do those C++ custom exotic datatypes map to
real datatypes supported by the hardware? (in other words, which
ones will actually be FAST?)
That's certainly an issue. I wonder how many applications are slower and more
overweight due to their being crafted with OOP than they would be if they were coded using
more traditional methods.
Our school didn't have a float point unit on our PDP-11; I was
*certain* that DEC's FORTRAN compiler could generate much faster
code than anything I could bodge together using BASIC (of any stripe),
and I could code it in less time.
My principal fascination with FORTRAN from the beginning, was
that it had this 'purpose built' feature to easily handle complex
math (and it did it quite well, IIRC). I have great respect for
individuals who insist on purpose-built tools.
-Jeff
Let's see--the last standard revision to FORTRAN
was Fortran 2003;
that to Algol was, what, Algol-68?
Umm I still like Fortran IV. I know you can get II or IV for the
PDP8. Now I'm all nostalgic. Time to dredge up the
the ol' 11/73 from
storage . . . .
That sounds like the Right Thing To Do(tm).
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL