Re: performance-oriented languages?

nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
4 Oct 2004 00:37:50 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
performance-oriented languages? vanevery@@indiegamedesign.com (Brandon J. Van Every) (2004-10-02)
Re: performance-oriented languages? alexvn@big-foot.com (Alex Vinokur) (2004-10-02)
Re: performance-oriented languages? beliavsky@aol.com (2004-10-02)
Re: performance-oriented languages? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2004-10-04)
Re: performance-oriented languages? barabucc@cs.unibo.it (Gioele Barabucci) (2004-10-04)
Re: performance-oriented languages? dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2004-10-09)
Re: performance-oriented languages? pkk@spth.de (Philipp Klaus Krause) (2004-10-09)
Re: performance-oriented languages? wildstf@hotmail.com (Stefano Lanzavecchia) (2004-10-12)
Re: performance-oriented languages? rrr@ieee.org (2004-10-17)
Re: performance-oriented languages? skaller@nospam.com.au (John Max Skaller) (2004-10-21)
[3 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 4 Oct 2004 00:37:50 -0400
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
References: 04-10-015 04-10-033
Keywords: performance, history
Posted-Date: 04 Oct 2004 00:37:50 EDT

  <beliavsky@aol.com> wrote:
>There was a language called "High Performance Fortran". Some of its
>features were merged in Fortran 95 (PURE and ELEMENTAL functions,
>FORALL), but otherwise it seems to have faded.


Its main purpose was to allow autoparallelisation, in which it was not
very successful, and was superseded by OpenMP (itself less than an
astounding success). There was an intent to extend it to enable
autoparallelisation over distributed memory systems, and that was as
spectacular a failure as all other such attempts have been.




Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.