Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
fortran vs C++
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  3 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
JaSeong Ju  
View profile  
 More options Mar 27 2004, 9:39 am
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
From: JaSeong Ju <j_kka...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:44:46 +0900
Local: Sat, Mar 27 2004 9:44 am
Subject: fortran vs C++
This is a little off topic but I still think this is the best place to ask.

I have met some people who use exclusively fortran (77,90,95)
to do their programming and scientific simulation work.
They claim that fortran is much faster than C++.

They also go on to cite advantages of fortran over C++.
It is annoying to hear such claims (even derogatory comments)
about C++ by people who have never used C++ before.

Im wondering just how does fortran and C++ performance compares?
Is the performance disparity a myth? or is it real?

It seems that fortran folks program C++ in fortran style, hence
making the code inneficient, and blaming the language for being slow.
And telling their friends not to use C++.

Anyone with an objective opinion?


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
John Carson  
View profile  
 More options Mar 27 2004, 10:07 am
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
From: "John Carson" <donaldquix...@datafast.net.au>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 02:07:07 +1100
Local: Sat, Mar 27 2004 10:07 am
Subject: Re: fortran vs C++
"JaSeong Ju" <j_kka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:4065935E.3000107@yahoo.com

I think Fortran is, or at least has been, generally considered faster for
numerical work. There has recently been an effort to match its speed in C++.
See the following background discussion for the Blitz library:

http://www.oonumerics.org/blitz/whatis.html

--
John Carson
1. To reply to email address, remove donald
2. Don't reply to email address (post here instead)


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Leor Zolman  
View profile  
 More options Mar 27 2004, 11:10 am
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
From: Leor Zolman <l...@bdsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:10:01 GMT
Local: Sat, Mar 27 2004 11:10 am
Subject: Re: fortran vs C++

Sure, Bjarne Stroustrup ;-)

At SD West, Bjarne began a section of his first talk by pointing out how
everybody "knows" that Fortran is the fastest platform for numeric
applications... and then put up a slide showing curves for performance of
dense matrix-vector multiplications on several platforms. The results were
that a good optimizing C++ compiler outperformed Fortran by between 40% and
around 15% (the difference diminishing with the size of the operands,
presumably due to the correspondingly diminishing benefits of cache
locality).

Bjarne's point was that, dealing a language permitting higher-level
abstractions than Fortran does, the C++ compilers had more information to
go on with which to optimize the generated code (and as a result, were able
to elide temporaries in cases where Fortran, by its nature, couldn't have a
clue.)

So the performance disparity is quite real -- just tipped the opposite way
than what  most people thought ;-)
        -leor

--
Leor Zolman --- BD Software --- www.bdsoft.com
On-Site Training in C/C++, Java, Perl and Unix  
C++ users: Download BD Software's free STL Error Message Decryptor at:
   www.bdsoft.com/tools/stlfilt.html


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »