MathGroup Archive 1996

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Re: c code generation

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg4448] Re: [mg4362] Re: c code generation
  • From: ross at (Ross Moore)
  • Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 04:30:51 -0400
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

Mark Evans wrote:

>The whole point of using a tool like Mathematica is to avoid writing C

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.

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.


        Ross Moore


  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: c code generation
  • Next by Date: graphs to postscript
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: c code generation
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: c code generation