Who uses clapack?

[Robert Corbett]

Your concerns seem oddly out of step, now that clc's own gatekeeper
declared them *off topic*. I agree, they should concentrate on doing
what C is good for -- numerical computing is not one of them.

While I might agree with you regarding C89, C90, or C95,
I disagree regarding C99. The facilities for numerical
computing in C99 are pretty much on a par with those in
Fortran, and in some cases are better. In particular,
C99 includes imaginary floating-point data types, which
are quite handy for some applications. It is still
easier to deal with arrays in Fortran than C, but C now
matches Fortran in areas where Fortran once had the edge,
such as aliasing and complex arithmetic.

Sincerely,
Bob Corbett

Sincerely,
Bob Corbett

 

[Charles Russell]

"Robert Corbett" wrote

It is still easier to deal with arrays in Fortran than C

and arrays of reals are what scientific computing is all about.

 

[bv]

What I have often wished for was a C implementation that represented the
same quality and attention to detail as the FORTRAN version.

Well, perhaps it's time for Mathworks to switch off its *freeloading*
mode and underwrite the project. It's obscene for someone from Mathworks
to expect someone else to do it for you.

 

[bv]

Yes...the writers of LAPACK should write a C++
version. After all, they are the experts.

You must have missed an ongoing mega $$ fiasco at JPL, experts rewriting
old doggone Fortran to a line noise, er, c++.

 

[Victor Eijkhout]

You must have missed an ongoing mega $$ fiasco at JPL, experts rewriting
old doggone Fortran to a line noise, er, c++.

Well, as they say, a determined programmer can write Fortran in any
language.

But seriously, what project/software was this?

V.