Re: Re: c code generation

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg4448] Re: [mg4362] Re: c code generation*From*: ross at mpce.mq.edu.au (Ross Moore)*Date*: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 04:30:51 -0400*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Mark Evans wrote: >The whole point of using a tool like Mathematica is to avoid writing C >code. Absolutely wrong! You always endeavour to use the best tool, or the most convenient set of tools, for the job at hand. If you have a good fast C program, then that should be able to be used ``in conjunction with'' Mathematica. Indeed Mathematica provides ways to do this. Thus Mathematica can provide a nice `Front End' to the C code, displaying the result `as if' Mathematica had done it itself. This is especially convenient for creating complicated graphics which require much computing to decide what to plot, or what colour to set for a each pixel, say. Many examples can be found in various books, and elsewhere. > .... If you must do that, I recommend a standard reference like >Numerical Recipies in C. In any event, Mathematica does not generate C >code for you. Nobody asks it to. ( Though doubtless it is flexible enough to do so, if you really wanted to devise a program to do this. ) Mathematica lets you ignore much of the visual/interface aspects of the code that you will find in this reference, allowing your C code to concentrate on the numerics (almost) exclusively. >What you can do -- and what is very helpful -- is to check your own C >code against Mathematica output to verify its correctness. Sure. But why the competitive connotations to this comment? If I already have good C code, why rewrite it in Mathematica, when all I need do is `link to it', from Mathematica. Regards, Ross Moore ==== [MESSAGE SEPARATOR] ====