Java > Scala
so at so.so
Sun Dec 4 13:29:21 PST 2011
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:00:44 +0200, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> On 03.12.2011 15:30, so wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 22:58:32 +0200, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp at progtools.org>
>>> 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 C's machine model is outdated, and it has never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.
More information about the Digitalmars-d