Re: Fortran vs C++ vs. etc (has little to do with realtime anymore)

[Jeffrey Templon <templon@studbolt.physast.uga.edu>]

pvanesch@vub.ac.be (Vanesch P.) writes:

> I think this is an essential point.  FORTRAN is well-suited to do
> calculations and hard-core scientific computation.  But more 
> complex structures (a GUI is program-wise a lot more complicated
> than a scientific calculation) are not dealt too well with in
> fortran I think.  I've seen this in the high-energy community.
> Both elements are present there: complex software systems and
> hard-core scientific computing.  Well, I've seen quite a mess
> in the FORTRAN implementation (rather ad hoc) of the complicated
> datastructures that had to be manipulated.  It would have been
> much better done (and the tendency now is - finally - to switch
> to things like C++) in a language suited for the task.

I agree that there are problems that get too complex for Fortran, at
least for Fortran-77.  I'm not sure these limitations apply to
Fortran-90, given the appearance of derived types and allocatable arrays.
Perhaps F90 is not enough, but I think C++ is not the answer for
people who aren't professional programmers.  Ada looks like it might
be easier for a normal human to work with and read, but I haven't spent
much time playing with it.

						JAT