# Re: Recommend an alternative to Numerical Recipes?

*From*: Terence <tbwright@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sun, 29 May 2011 16:20:14 -0700 (PDT)

On May 29, 1:43 am, "robin" wrote:

....

| Thanks for the reference. But did they HAVE to use Fortran 77,

| in 1996?

A book of 600+ pages takes more than a few years to write.

The authors state that the book was begun about 20 years before.

Several editions have been published over the years, each edition updated..

As well as F77, they also include F90 versions.

They could well have dropped the F77 versions.

The point about using F77 in algorithms is that most non-specialits

can better understand the processes being used, if you have at least a

good knowledge of Algebra (which was the whole thrust of the Bachus

team in dsigning Fortran; although Algol comes to mind as a familiar

alternative), or have some familiarity with Basic, if not Fortran.

Yes, you can stuff some of the basic matrix operations behind the

curtain of a later and more compact Fortran representation, with

Matrix built-in operations and fewr labels to trace, but part of the

reason for recipes is to show the how and why (the cookery book theme

is appropriate).

.

**Follow-Ups**:

**References**:**Recommend an alternative to Numerical Recipes?***From:*Daniel Carrera

**Re: Recommend an alternative to Numerical Recipes?***From:*robin

**Re: Recommend an alternative to Numerical Recipes?***From:*nmm1

**Re: Recommend an alternative to Numerical Recipes?***From:*robin

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Recommend an alternative to Numerical Recipes?** - Next by Date:
**Re: Recommend an alternative to Numerical Recipes?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Recommend an alternative to Numerical Recipes?** - Next by thread:
**Re: Recommend an alternative to Numerical Recipes?** - Index(es):