Java > Scala

so so at
Sun Dec 4 13:29:21 PST 2011

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:00:44 +0200, Don <nospam at> wrote:

> On 03.12.2011 15:30, so wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 22:58:32 +0200, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp at>
>> 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 C's machine model is outdated, and it has never  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.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list