Since , it has been developed for smartphones. Go was created by Google engineers as an experiment. It is designed to solve known criticisms of other languages. It has also been developed to preserve its positive properties.
Go programming language; It had the characteristics of being productive and readable, supporting network and multiple operations, being statically written and scalable to large systems. Golang is a programming language that took its first step in , was voiced in , and reached Go 1. It is a very young, open-source programming language powered by Google, which is simple and outstanding for its performance.
Go is an open-source language. Thanks to this feature, we can examine the Go source code line by line. The team responsible for developing this program within Google contributed to this language themselves. In addition, taking into account the opinions and suggestions of technology giants using this technology, it is tried to develop additional skills.
At the same time, the opinions of ordinary developers are followed through the communities. This day marks the birthday of John Warner Backus, who is considered the creator of the FORTRAN programming language, this offers a great opportunity to learn about and reflect on the history of this technology, which is the first high-level language invented.
For IBM in and commercially launched in The history of this language dates back to as a programming tool for the IBM It provided support for procedural programming by introducing declarations that allowed programmers to create subroutines and functions, thus encouraging code reuse. Fortran is now over forty years old and still the leading language in scientific and industrial programming; of course, it has been constantly updated.
I only have regular contact with astrophysicists , so it is not very representative, but:. Physicists mostly use the Fortran programming language. The reason is that millions of lines have been written in Fortran for all kinds of scientific, physical, and mathematical calculations. It is logical to think that physicists are going to want to use the same programming language that they have been using in all these years mainly to ensure maximum compatibility with the work that has been done in all these times, only having to make a minimum change in the code source to ensure that a program written in a very early version of Fortran can be successfully compiled into one of the more recent versions of Fortran.
I first heard of Fortran from my father in early childhood. He said that in order to start the primitive code using the punch card, he had to raise his only computer in college for almost no computer, one rank for one rank.
I honestly admit, since then until recently despite the technical training obtained , I was confident that Fortran was staying somewhere there, in the world, Punchy Strange Cards Talking Cards Speakers and Computers are a real shot that they are so expensive.
What was my surprise when I found out that Ford is not only used in one place but is in demand and is still relevant? Hence, it is concluded that there are a lot of programming languages, but among them, very few.
Presently, the programmers have several options to select the programming language, the. If you start with little programming. However, there is more to. I recommend anyone who enters computer science to. Always remember that your time is more. So, It is logical to think that physicists are going to want to use the same programming language. The book was published by Lexis Nexis on In , I wrote the second edition. Much of this website is derived from these two books. Disclaimer: Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information published on this website is accurate, the author and owners of this website take no responsibility for any loss or damage suffered as a result of relience upon the information contained therein.
Furthermore the bulk of the information is derived from information in and use therefore is at your on risk. In addition you should consult professional advice if required. By signing up you agree to our terms. Table of Contents. Is anything faster than C? How long does it take to learn Fortran? Is Fortran faster than Python? Fortran vs. Java Communicating with our computer or with our smartphone is nowadays as easy as pressing icons, opening menus, choosing an option from a list of actions.
Go vs. Fortran Go, or Golang, is an open-source programming language that Google started to develop in Go Programming Language Examples Go is an open-source language. I don't think that the question or the answers are subjective.
But if you think that this flag helps anyone, I'm fine with it. Show 10 more comments. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer. Zaffy Nils Pipenbrinck Nils Pipenbrinck All true and valid, jeff. However, I don't consider the "assume no aliasing"-switch safe. It can break code inherited from other projects in so subtle ways that I'd rather not use it. I've become a restrict-nazi for that reason :- — Nils Pipenbrinck. To my second point, you don't have to use the no alias compiler switch.
Just write the code so that the pointer based loads are assigned into an automatic variable first and then work with the automatics from there. It will look more verbose, but it will optimize down perfectly by the compiler.
A good example is the mere existence of memcpy vs. Unlike memcpy , memmove copes with overlapping areas, therefore memcpy can be faster then memmove. This issue was sufficient reason for somebody to include two function instead of one into the standard library. Your call transform example doesn't have much sense.
Show 22 more comments. Yes, in ; in ? Russ 9, 10 10 gold badges 39 39 silver badges 53 53 bronze badges. Is there an alternative link? Add a comment. CT Zhu You may wish to read pimiddy. The replacement is do concurrent. Hossein Talebi Hossein Talebi 4 4 silver badges 2 2 bronze badges. F'x Auto-vectorization gives the same benefits in most cases if these functions are inline or builtins Builtin complex type.
Greg Rogers Greg Rogers C compilers will most likely return that struct in sret form with the caller stack allocating space, passing a pointer to the callee that fills it in. That is several times slower than returning multiple values in registers as a Fortran compiler would. Note that C99 fixed this in the special case of complex. I am not sure I agree with your main reason. I personally like to use fortran for math heavy code where arrays and math functions are the most important part of the code.
But I know for a fact in a lot of government institutions and banks they continue to use fortran to maintain or extend legacy code. I personally used fortran to extend code a professor on my Ph. Your statement, "the main reason to use Fortran nowadays is maintaining or extending legacy applications", is completely wrong. I have yet to see any other programming language even remotely close to the features Fortran provides, especially for Mathematical applications.
You already named a few of them, such as superb array support, built-in complex arithmetic, pure or elemental functions - and I could name more as well. That alone is enough to prove your statement above is wrong. Fortran compilers have certian advantages: Fortran had to compete with Assembly back in the day when some vowed never to use compilers, so it was designed for speed. C was designed to be flexible. Fortran's niche has been number crunching. In this domain code is never fast enough. So there's always been a lot of pressure to keep the language efficient.
Most of the research in compiler optimizations is done by people interested in speeding up Fortran number crunching code, so optimizing Fortran code is a much better known problem than optimizing any other compiled language, and new innovations show up in Fortran compilers first. Biggie : C encourages much more pointer use than Fortran.
This drasticly increases the potential scope of any data item in a C program, which makes them far harder to optimize. Note that Ada is also way better than C in this realm, and is a much more modern OO Language than the commonly found Fortran If you want an OO langauge that can generate faster code than C, this is an option for you.
Due again to its number-crunching niche, the customers of Fortran compilers tend to care more about optimization than the customers of C compilers. I agree. And may I add that when Fortran was introduced it was the first high level language in the late 50's early 60's many were skeptical about how efficient it could be.
Therefore its developers had to prove that Fortran could be efficient and useful and set about to "optimize it to death" just to prove their point.
C came much later early to mid 70's and had nothing to prove, so to speak. But by this time a lot of Fortran code had been written so the scientific community stuck to it and still does. The research on compiler optimization has been more diverse than you seem to think. The history of LISP implementations, for example, is full of successes at doing number crunching faster than Fortran which remains the default contender to challenge. Also, a huge part of compiler optimization has targeted intermediate representations of the compiler, which means that, differences in semantics aside like aliasing , they apply to any programming language of a given class.
The idea is repeated a lot, but it's a bit disingenuous to say that there's no consequences for efficiency inherent to a programming language design.
Some programming language features necessarily lead to inefficiencies because they limit the information available at compile time. Praxeolitic - That is quite correct which is why I am pleased that I said no such thing. Honestly, coming back here a few months later I have no idea why I left that comment on your answer. Maybe I meant to leave it somewhere else? X-P — Praxeolitic. Not only that it took until C 99 that C had them, also the rules govern them is better in Fortran; since the Fortran library of gfortran is partially written in C but implements the Fortran semantics, GCC gained the option which can also be used with "normal" C programs : -fcx-fortran-rules Complex multiplication and division follow Fortran rules.
What makes infinities different from NaN is that infinities are signed. Operations involving non-complex infinities that would yield a muddled sign yield NaN and I see no reason complex numbers should do otherwise. What is one instead multiples it by 1. Almost upmodded this. The problem is that Fortran does have some inherent advantages. However, you are quite corrent that the important thing to look at is the compier, not the language.
The ugly translation is required to overcome the aliasing problem. You have to give the compiler mock variables to tell it that byref variables implemented as pointers can be register-optimised. Anyway, a good programmer can write Fortran in any language. Kluge Kluge 3, 2 2 gold badges 23 23 silver badges 21 21 bronze badges. Scott Clawson: you got -1'd and I don't know why.
However, something to take into account is Fortran has been around longer than a lot of our parents have been. Lots of time spent optimizing compiler output :D — user I had just posted a very similar answer in parallel.
Pointer alias issue in C has been raised by others, but there are several methods the programmer can use on modern compilers to deal with that, so I still agree. Kluge: "There is nothing intrinsic to Fortran that would make it faster than C". Pointer aliasing, returning compound values in registers, built-in higher-level numerical constructs Explanation: C was designed to write operating systems.
Markus Dutschke Markus Dutschke 5, 2 2 gold badges 41 41 silver badges 43 43 bronze badges. Can you write a native parallel application in C meaning, without calling any libraries? Can you write a native parallel application in Fortran? Yes, in a few different ways. Ergo, Fortran is "faster". ALthough, to be fair, in when you wrote your comment, support for parallel do and co-array features of Fortran were probably not as widespread as they are now.
MaliRemorker He wrote this in , not in The overhead of creating parallel processes is in my opinion not the most relevant factor for a programming language being called 'fast'. More relevant are practical considerations, like a non-performant peace of code. So it does not help anything if you save time once when creating the parallel process and waste it on multiple cores later. The term 'fast' should also consider non-parallel codes. For this reason, I can not see an argument against my point.
Maybe your comment was ment as an independent answer? Pramod Pramod 8, 4 4 gold badges 24 24 silver badges 27 27 bronze badges. Lott S. Lott k 75 75 gold badges silver badges bronze badges. Lott: I couldn't imagine how awful C code would have to look to do as good as simply written Fortran for most of the codes we have here You'll get better performance out of simpler code in Fortran.
Not that you or I couldn't find a counterexample. No compiler is going to spread a computation on 16 elements of a vector to 16 different CPUs. That'd be hundreds of times slower This is true for almost everything. Lott: "multi-threading only exists for performance". Err, no. Lott: "C's use of pointers almost at the hardware level allows C to be faster than Fortran". Show 6 more comments. JPerez45 JPerez45 59 1 1 silver badge 1 1 bronze badge. Zeus Zeus 1, 17 17 silver badges 28 28 bronze badges.
Using modern standards and compiler, no! That changed more than 25 years ago. Active 6 months ago. Viewed 41k times. Improve this question. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer. Those HPC clusters are a rare and expensive common resource.
I have seen I personally would not use for anything other than isolated heavy array computing. Not even for anything related to output. So far for a biased comment. Our finite element code would not have been possible to write in Fortran. The code got consistently shorter, faster, and easier to understand, and it was more capable after each iteration.
Pick the language you're most comfortable with. This is very important I should have been more explicit in my answer about this. Of course, " Try implementing adaptive finite elements, hp methods, or multigrid on unstructured meshes using simple data structures. Bill is spot on and I believe I can speak for him in saying that using "modern Fortran" would have made hardly more than a small difference.
Show 1 more comment. This has gotten much longer that anything I entended, so here's a summary -- a set of take home messages of sorts: You will write the best code you can in the language which you know best.
There is no difference in the quality of code produced by two compilers which use the same back-end -- it is us who write bad code in one language or another. SIMD, threads, networking, etc Pedro Pedro 9, 1 1 gold badge 32 32 silver badges 44 44 bronze badges. I don't think however your final comment is necessarily true. I'm a C programmer myself, but you get access to low level things in Fortran through good programming practices.
The ideal way to utilize things like SIMD ops is to write code which strongly suggests it blocking loops out, for example and let the compiler do it for you.
For threading, simply use openMP pthreads is also usable with some extra work. Fortran has all of the things you mention it doesn't, just at a level that matters to its typical user: numerical.
Atcheson: Well, if you block-out everything such that the compiler will catch it, then it will work automagically both in C and in Fortran. The problem is, though, how far do you want to trust your compiler? And why do you want to have to trust it in cases when you know exactly what you want done? OpenMP does threading, yes, but block-wise.
You can trick it into getting different thread pools to do different things, but that is just mis-using OpenMP. Pthreads for Fortran are just wrappers to the C functions. I agree, though, that Fortran is easier if you're not into the details.
Beyond this you either have to use intrinsics or inline ASM. You have to make concessions somewhere for overall programmer efficiency, that's why programming languages exist in the first place. At the stage that you actually are insane enough to get into the details of intrinsics or ASM I have been a few times , Fortran isn't a crutch.
You'd know how to link in your assembled hand-optimized code anyways. Absolutely brilliant. Thanks a lot for posting. Just found it while randomly rummaging through interesting threads.
Show 2 more comments. Wolfgang Bangerth Wolfgang Bangerth Community Bot 1. Jack Poulson Jack Poulson 7, 29 29 silver badges 40 40 bronze badges. At that level of code size and complexity the difference in what a compiler could pull out of it is unclear. But my expertise is limited, and I simply don't have time to invest into understanding the generated assembly from gcc. So I simply use Fortran, it's simple and it's fast. Unfortunately, most compilers, e. The machinery doing the optimization and code generation is identical and therefore the differences in the results are most probably due to differences in the familiarity of the programmer with the underlying language The former was written in straight forward Fortran 77, the latter in straight forward C without the use of 'restrict'.
Both had around lines of code. Today, Trilinos uses the piece of code hoisted from deal. I'm sure one can find lots of cases where F77 is faster than C. The point is that isn't universally so any more today. Show 8 more comments. Jeremy Kozdon Jeremy Kozdon 3 3 silver badges 13 13 bronze badges. For example, the STL is designed to operate on a very abstract level.
One has to be aware what the interface is designed for, use it for this task and then get out of the compilers way. It's like saying "Cars drive at such high speed that you could crash into a wall and get injured; you should use horse-drawn carriages instead.
If you want a car analogy, it should be more like "you can use both Jeep and Lexus to cross a swampy byway, but using the first one hurts less". Fortran does not support refactoring well. Pulling some bit of functionality out of a function requires you to touch four places: Actual code, variable declarations, argument declarations, and argument list.
C gets by with two places to touch.
0コメント