Fortran和C之间的速度差异更多的是编译器优化和特定编译器使用的底层数学库的函数。Fortran没有什么固有的特性可以使它比C更快。

不管怎样，一个优秀的程序员可以用任何语言编写Fortran。

This is more than somewhat subjective, because it gets into the quality of compilers and such more than anything else. However, to more directly answer your question, speaking from a language/compiler standpoint there is nothing about Fortran over C that is going to make it inherently faster or better than C. If you are doing heavy math operations, it will come down to the quality of the compiler, the skill of the programmer in each language and the intrinsic math support libraries that support those operations to ultimately determine which is going to be faster for a given implementation.

编辑:@Nils等人提出了一个很好的观点，即C语言中指针使用的差异，以及可能存在的别名，这可能会使C语言中最简单的实现变慢。然而，在C99中有一些方法可以解决这个问题，比如通过编译器优化标志和/或C语言的实际编写方式。这在@Nils的回答和随后的评论中有很好的介绍。

这两种语言具有相似的特性集。性能上的差异来自Fortran不允许混淆的事实，除非使用了EQUIVALENCE语句。任何有别名的代码都不是有效的Fortran，但是它是由程序员而不是编译器来检测这些错误的。因此，Fortran编译器忽略了可能的内存指针别名，并允许它们生成更有效的代码。看一下C语言中的这个小例子:

void transform (float *output, float const * input, float const * matrix, int *n)
{
    int i;
    for (i=0; i<*n; i++)
    {
        float x = input[i*2+0];
        float y = input[i*2+1];
        output[i*2+0] = matrix[0] * x + matrix[1] * y;
        output[i*2+1] = matrix[2] * x + matrix[3] * y;
    }
}

这个函数在优化后会比Fortran函数运行得慢。为什么如此?如果你在输出数组中写入值，你可能会改变矩阵的值。毕竟，指针可以重叠并指向相同的内存块(包括int指针!)C编译器被迫从内存中重新加载所有计算的四个矩阵值。

在Fortran中，编译器只加载一次矩阵值，并将它们存储在寄存器中。它可以这样做是因为Fortran编译器假定指针/数组在内存中不重叠。

Fortunately, the restrict keyword and strict-aliasing have been introduced to the C99 standard to address this problem. It's well supported in most C++ compilers these days as well. The keyword allows you to give the compiler a hint that the programmer promises that a pointer does not alias with any other pointer. The strict-aliasing means that the programmer promises that pointers of different type will never overlap, for example a double* will not overlap with an int* (with the specific exception that char* and void* can overlap with anything).

If you use them you will get the same speed from C and Fortran. However, the ability to use the restrict keyword only with performance critical functions means that C (and C++) programs are much safer and easier to write. For example, consider the invalid Fortran code: CALL TRANSFORM(A(1, 30), A(2, 31), A(3, 32), 30), which most Fortran compilers will happily compile without any warning but introduces a bug that only shows up on some compilers, on some hardware and with some optimization options.

我还没有听说过Fortan比C快得多，但是可以想象在某些情况下它会更快。关键不在于语言特征的存在，而在于那些(通常)不存在的特征。

一个例子是C指针。C指针几乎到处都在使用，但指针的问题是编译器通常无法判断它们是否指向同一个数组的不同部分。

例如，如果你写了一个strcpy例程，看起来像这样:

strcpy(char *d, const char* s)
{
  while(*d++ = *s++);
}

编译器必须在d和s可能是重叠数组的假设下工作。所以当数组重叠时，它不能执行会产生不同结果的优化。正如您所期望的，这在很大程度上限制了可以执行的优化类型。

[我应该注意到，C99有一个“restrict”关键字，显式地告诉编译器指针不重叠。还要注意，Fortran也有指针，语义不同于C语言，但指针不像C语言那样无处不在。

但是回到C与Fortran的问题上，可以想象，Fortran编译器能够执行一些对于(直接编写的)C程序可能无法实现的优化。所以我不会对这种说法感到太惊讶。不过，我确实希望性能差异不会太大。(~ 5 - 10%)

一般来说，FORTRAN比C慢。C可以使用硬件级指针，允许程序员手动优化。FORTRAN(在大多数情况下)不能访问硬件内存寻址黑客。(VAX FORTRAN是另一回事。)我从70年代开始断断续续地使用FORTRAN。(真的)。

然而，从90年代开始，FORTRAN已经发展到包括特定的语言结构，可以优化成内在的并行算法，真正可以在多核处理器上运行。例如，自动矢量化允许多个处理器同时处理数据向量中的每个元素。16个处理器——16个元素向量——处理需要1/16的时间。

在C语言中，您必须管理自己的线程并为多处理仔细设计算法，然后使用一堆API调用来确保并行性正确发生。

在FORTRAN中，您只需要为多处理仔细设计算法。编译器和运行时可以为您处理其余的工作。

您可以阅读一些关于高性能Fortran的内容，但是您会发现许多死链接。你最好阅读并行编程(比如OpenMP.org)以及FORTRAN如何支持并行编程。

Fortran和C语言在特定目的上并没有哪一种语言比另一种更快。对于每种语言的特定编译器，有些编译器比其他编译器更适合某些任务。

多年来，Fortran编译器一直存在，它可以对你的数字例程施黑魔法，使许多重要的计算变得异常快速。当代的C编译器无法做到这一点。因此，在Fortran中出现了许多伟大的代码库。如果您想要使用这些经过良好测试的、成熟的、出色的库，就需要使用Fortran编译器。

我的非正式观察表明，如今人们用任何古老的语言来编码他们繁重的计算内容，如果这需要一段时间，他们就会在一些廉价的计算集群上找到时间。摩尔定律让我们所有人都成了傻瓜。

Fortran速度更快有几个原因。然而，它们的重要性是如此无关紧要，或者可以通过任何方式解决，所以它不应该是重要的。现在使用Fortran的主要原因是维护或扩展遗留应用程序。

PURE and ELEMENTAL keywords on functions. These are functions that have no side effects. This allows optimizations in certain cases where the compiler knows the same function will be called with the same values. Note: GCC implements "pure" as an extension to the language. Other compilers may as well. Inter-module analysis can also perform this optimization but it is difficult. standard set of functions that deal with arrays, not individual elements. Stuff like sin(), log(), sqrt() take arrays instead of scalars. This makes it easier to optimize the routine. Auto-vectorization gives the same benefits in most cases if these functions are inline or builtins Builtin complex type. In theory this could allow the compiler to reorder or eliminate certain instructions in certain cases, but likely you'd see the same benefit with the struct { double re; double im; }; idiom used in C. It makes for faster development though as operators work on complex types in Fortran.

I think the key point in favor of Fortran is that it is a language slightly more suited for expressing vector- and array-based math. The pointer analysis issue pointed out above is real in practice, since portable code cannot really assume that you can tell a compiler something. There is ALWAYS an advantage to expression computaitons in a manner closer to how the domain looks. C does not really have arrays at all, if you look closely, just something that kind of behaves like it. Fortran has real arrawys. Which makes it easier to compile for certain types of algorithms especially for parallel machines.

在运行时系统和调用约定等方面，C语言和现代的Fortran非常相似，很难看出有什么不同。注意，这里的C实际上是基础C: c++是一个完全不同的问题，具有非常不同的性能特征。

是的，在1980年;在2008年?取决于

当我开始专业编程时，Fortran的速度优势正受到挑战。我记得我在Dr. Dobbs上读到过这篇文章，并把这篇文章告诉了年长的程序员——他们都笑了。

所以我对此有两种观点，理论上的和实际的。从理论上讲，今天的Fortran与C/ c++甚至任何允许汇编代码的语言相比，并没有内在的优势。在实践中，今天的Fortran仍然享有围绕优化数值代码而建立的历史和文化遗产的好处。

Up until and including Fortran 77, language design considerations had optimization as a main focus. Due to the state of compiler theory and technology, this often meant restricting features and capability in order to give the compiler the best shot at optimizing the code. A good analogy is to think of Fortran 77 as a professional race car that sacrifices features for speed. These days compilers have gotten better across all languages and features for programmer productivity are more valued. However, there are still places where the people are mainly concerned with speed in scientific computing; these people most likely have inherited code, training and culture from people who themselves were Fortran programmers.

当人们开始谈论代码优化时，会有很多问题，了解这一点的最好方法是潜伏在那些工作是快速编写数字代码的人身上。但是请记住，这种高度敏感的代码通常只占整个代码行的一小部分，而且非常专门:许多Fortran代码就像其他语言中的许多其他代码一样“低效”，优化甚至不应该是此类代码的主要关注点。

要开始了解Fortran的历史和文化，维基百科是一个很好的地方。Fortran维基百科的条目是一流的，我非常感谢那些花时间和精力使它对Fortran社区有价值的人。

(这个答案的缩短版本本可以在Nils开始的优秀帖子中发表评论，但我没有这样做的业力。实际上，如果不是因为这个帖子有实际的信息内容和分享，而不是激烈的争吵和语言偏见，我可能根本不会写任何东西，这是我对这个主题的主要经验。我不知所措，不得不分享这份爱。)

There is another item where Fortran is different than C - and potentially faster. Fortran has better optimization rules than C. In Fortran, the evaluation order of an expressions is not defined, which allows the compiler to optimize it - if one wants to force a certain order, one has to use parentheses. In C the order is much stricter, but with "-fast" options, they are more relaxed and "(...)" are also ignored. I think Fortran has a way which lies nicely in the middle. (Well, IEEE makes the live more difficult as certain evaluation-order changes require that no overflows occur, which either has to be ignored or hampers the evaluation).

另一个更聪明的规则领域是复数。这不仅是因为直到c99才有了它们，而且Fortran中管理它们的规则更好;由于gfortran的Fortran库部分是用C编写的，但实现了Fortran语义，GCC获得了这个选项(也可以用于“普通”C程序):

-fcx-fortran-rules 复杂的乘法和除法遵循Fortran规则。范围缩减是作为复杂除法的一部分进行的，但是没有检查复杂乘法或除法的结果是否是“NaN + I*NaN”，试图在这种情况下挽救这种情况。

The alias rules mentioned above is another bonus and also - at least in principle - the whole-array operations, which if taken properly into account by the optimizer of the compiler, can lead faster code. On the contra side are that certain operation take more time, e.g. if one does an assignment to an allocatable array, there are lots of checks necessary (reallocate? [Fortran 2003 feature], has the array strides, etc.), which make the simple operation more complex behind the scenes - and thus slower, but makes the language more powerful. On the other hand, the array operations with flexible bounds and strides makes it easier to write code - and the compiler is usually better optimizing code than a user.

总的来说，我认为C和Fortran的速度差不多;选择应该更多的是你更喜欢哪种语言，或者是使用Fortran的全数组操作及其更好的可移植性更有用，还是使用C中更好的系统接口和图形用户界面库。

我将Fortran、C和c++的速度与netlib中的经典Levine-Callahan-Dongarra基准进行了比较。使用OpenMP的多语言版本是 http://sites.google.com/site/tprincesite/levine-callahan-dongarra-vectors C语言更丑陋，因为它一开始是自动翻译，加上某些编译器的限制和pragmas插入。 c++就是在适用的地方使用STL模板的C。在我看来，STL在是否能提高可维护性方面好坏参半。

为了了解自动函数内联在多大程度上改进了优化，只需要进行很少的练习，因为示例基于传统的Fortran实践，其中很少依赖内联。

到目前为止使用最广泛的C/ c++编译器缺乏自动向量化，而这些基准测试严重依赖于此。

关于这之前的帖子:在Fortran中使用括号来指示更快或更准确的求值顺序的例子有两个。已知的C编译器没有在不禁用更重要的优化的情况下观察括号的选项。

没有一种语言比另一种语言更快，所以正确的答案是否定的。

你真正要问的是“用Fortran编译器X编译的代码是否比用C编译器Y编译的等效代码更快?”这个问题的答案当然取决于您选择哪两个编译器。

人们可能会问的另一个问题是“考虑到在他们的编译器中优化投入了相同的精力，哪个编译器会生成更快的代码?” 这个问题的答案实际上是Fortran。Fortran编译器有一些优势:

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 Fortran77. 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.

然而，没有什么能阻止人们在C编译器的优化上投入大量精力，并使其生成比他们平台的Fortran编译器更好的代码。事实上，C编译器产生的较大销售额使得这种情况非常可行

在某种程度上，Fortran在设计时就考虑到了编译器优化。该语言支持整个数组操作，编译器可以利用并行性(特别是在多核处理器上)。例如,

密集矩阵乘法很简单:

matmul(a,b)

向量x的L2范数为:

sqrt(sum(x**2))

此外，FORALL、PURE和ELEMENTAL程序等语句进一步有助于优化代码。由于这个简单的原因，即使是Fortran中的指针也不如C语言灵活。

即将发布的Fortran标准(2008)具有协同数组，允许您轻松地编写并行代码。G95(开源)和来自CRAY的编译器已经支持它。

所以是的，Fortran可以很快，因为编译器可以比C/ c++更好地优化/并行化。但是就像生活中的其他事情一样，有好的编译器和坏的编译器。

大多数帖子已经提出了令人信服的论点，所以我只是在另一个方面加上众所周知的2美分。

在处理能力方面，fortran更快或更慢是有其重要性的，但如果用fortran开发一些东西需要5倍多的时间，因为:

it lacks any good library for tasks different from pure number crunching it lack any decent tool for documentation and unit testing it's a language with very low expressivity, skyrocketing the number of lines of code. it has a very poor handling of strings it has an inane amount of issues among different compilers and architectures driving you crazy. it has a very poor IO strategy (READ/WRITE of sequential files. Yes, random access files exist but did you ever see them used?) it does not encourage good development practices, modularization. effective lack of a fully standard, fully compliant opensource compiler (both gfortran and g95 do not support everything) very poor interoperability with C (mangling: one underscore, two underscores, no underscore, in general one underscore but two if there's another underscore. and just let not delve into COMMON blocks...)

那么这个问题就无关紧要了。如果某样东西很慢，大多数时候你无法在给定的限制范围内改进它。如果你想要更快，改变算法。最后，使用电脑的时间很便宜。人类的时间不是。珍惜减少人类时间的选择。如果它增加了使用电脑的时间，无论如何它都是有成本效益的。

The faster code is not really up to the language, is the compiler so you can see the ms-vb "compiler" that generates bloated, slower and redundant object code that is tied together inside an ".exe", but powerBasic generates too way better code. Object code made by a C and C++ compilers is generated in some phases (at least 2) but by design most Fortran compilers have at least 5 phases including high-level optimizations so by design Fortran will always have the capability to generate highly optimized code. So at the end is the compiler not the language you should ask for, the best compiler i know is the Intel Fortran Compiler because you can get it on LINUX and Windows and you can use VS as the IDE, if you're looking for a cheap tigh compiler you can always relay on OpenWatcom.

更多信息: http://ed-thelen.org/1401Project/1401-IBM-Systems-Journal-FORTRAN.html

I was doing some extensive mathematics with FORTRAN and C for a couple of years. From my own experience I can tell that FORTRAN is sometimes really better than C but not for its speed (one can make C perform as fast as FORTRAN by using appropriate coding style) but rather because of very well optimized libraries like LAPACK (which can, however, be called from C code as well, either linking against LAPACK directly or using the LAPACKE interface for C), and because of great parallelization. On my opinion, FORTRAN is really awkward to work with, and its advantages are not good enough to cancel that drawback, so now I am using C+GSL to do calculations.

有趣的是，这里的很多答案都来自于不懂语言。这对于那些打开过旧的FORTRAN 77代码并讨论过其弱点的C/ c++程序员来说尤其如此。

我认为速度问题主要是C/ c++和Fortran之间的问题。在大型代码中，它总是取决于程序员。有一些语言特性是Fortran优于的，而一些特性是C优于的。所以，在2011年，没有人能真正说出哪一个更快。

About the language itself, Fortran nowadays supports Full OOP features and it is fully backward compatible. I have used the Fortran 2003 thoroughly and I would say it was just delightful to use it. In some aspects, Fortran 2003 is still behind C++ but let's look at the usage. Fortran is mostly used for Numerical Computation, and nobody uses fancy C++ OOP features because of speed reasons. In high performance computing, C++ has almost no place to go(have a look at the MPI standard and you'll see that C++ has been deprecated!).

现在，您可以简单地使用Fortran和C/ c++进行混合语言编程。Fortran中甚至有GTK+的接口。有免费的编译器(gfortran, g95)和许多优秀的商业编译器。

Fortran有更好的I/O例程，例如隐含的do工具提供了C标准库无法比拟的灵活性。

Fortran编译器直接处理更复杂的 涉及到语法，而且这样的语法不能轻易简化 参数传递形式，C不能有效地实现它。

Fortran traditionally doesn't set options such as -fp:strict (which ifort requires to enable some of the features in USE IEEE_arithmetic, a part of f2003 standard). Intel C++ also doesn't set -fp:strict as a default, but that is required for ERRNO handling, for example, and other C++ compilers don't make it convenient to turn off ERRNO or gain optimizations such as simd reduction. gcc and g++ have required me to set up Makefile to avoid using the dangerous combination -O3 -ffast-math -fopenmp -march=native. Other than these issues, this question about relative performance gets more nit-picky and dependent on local rules about choice of compilers and options.

我是一个业余程序员，在这两种语言上我都是“平均”。 我发现编写快速Fortran代码比编写C(或c++)代码更容易。Fortran和C都是“历史悠久”的语言(按照今天的标准)，被大量使用，并且很好地支持免费和商业编译器。

我不知道这是否是一个历史事实，但Fortran感觉它是为并行/分布式/向量化/多核化而构建的。今天，当我们谈论速度时，它几乎是“标准度量”:“它能缩放吗?”

对于纯粹的cpu计算，我喜欢Fortran。对于任何与IO相关的东西，我发现使用c更容易(无论如何这两种情况都很困难)。

当然，对于并行计算密集型代码，你可能需要使用GPU。C和Fortran都有很多或多或少很好地集成了CUDA/OpenCL接口(现在还有OpenACC)。

我比较客观的回答是:如果你对这两种语言都同样了解或不了解，那么我认为Fortran更快，因为我发现用Fortran写并行/分布式代码比用c更容易(一旦你明白你可以写“自由形式”Fortran，而不仅仅是严格的F77代码)

Here is a 2nd answer for those willing to downvote me because they don't like the 1st answer : Both language have the features required to write high-performance code. So it's dependent of the algorithm you're implementing (cpu intensive ? io intensive ? memory intensive?), the hardware (single cpu ? multi-core ? distribute supercomputer ? GPGPU ? FPGA ?), your skill and ultimately the compiler itself. Both C and Fortran have awesome compiler. (i'm seriously amazed by how advanced Fortran compilers are but so are C compilers).

PS:我很高兴你特别排除了库，因为我有很多关于Fortran GUI库的不好的东西要说。：）

简单快捷: 这两种语言同样快，但Fortran更简单。 到底哪个更快取决于算法，但无论如何，速度上没有很大的差别。这是我2015年在德国斯图加德高性能计算中心的Fortran研讨会上所学到的。我同时使用Fortran和C语言，我也有同样的观点。

解释:

C语言是用来编写操作系统的。因此，它拥有编写高性能代码所需的更多自由。一般来说，这是没有问题的，但是如果一个人不仔细编程，他很容易减慢代码的速度。

Fortran是为科学编程而设计的。因此，它支持编写语法方面的快速代码，因为这是Fortran的主要目的。与公众的看法相反，Fortran并不是一种过时的编程语言。它的最新标准是2010年，新的编译器定期发布，因为大多数高性能代码都是用Fortran编写的。Fortran进一步支持现代功能，如编译器指令(在C语言中)。

例子: 我们想给一个大的结构体作为函数的输入参数(fortran: suboutine)。在函数中，参数不会被改变。

C同时支持引用调用和值调用，这是一个非常方便的特性。在我们的例子中，程序员可能会意外地使用按值调用。这大大降低了速度，因为需要首先将结构体复制到内存中。

Fortran只使用引用调用，这迫使程序员手动复制结构，如果他真的想要按值调用操作。在我们的例子中，通过引用调用，fortran将自动和C版本一样快。

使用现代标准和编译器，不!

Some of the folks here have suggested that FORTRAN is faster because the compiler doesn't need to worry about aliasing (and hence can make more assumptions during optimisation). However, this has been dealt with in C since the C99 (I think) standard with the inclusion of the restrict keyword. Which basically tells the compiler, that within a give scope, the pointer is not aliased. Furthermore C enables proper pointer arithmetic, where things like aliasing can be very useful in terms of performance and resource allocation. Although I think more recent version of FORTRAN enable the use of "proper" pointers.

对于现代实现，C通用优于FORTRAN(尽管它也非常快)。

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/fortran.html

编辑:

一个公平的批评似乎是，基准测试可能是有偏见的。这里是另一个来源(相对于C)，将结果放在更多的上下文中:

http://julialang.org/benchmarks/

你可以看到C在大多数情况下优于Fortran(再次看到下面的批评也适用于这里);正如其他人所指出的，基准测试是一门不精确的科学，很容易偏袒一种语言而不是其他语言。但它确实说明了Fortran和C语言有相似的性能。

Fortran可以非常方便地处理数组，特别是多维数组。在Fortran中对多维数组元素进行切片比在C/ c++中容易得多。c++现在有库可以做这项工作，比如Boost或Eigen，但它们毕竟是外部库。在Fortran中，这些函数是固有的。

对于开发来说，Fortran是更快还是更方便主要取决于您需要完成的工作。作为地球物理的科学计算人员，我用Fortran(我指的是现代Fortran， >=F90)进行了大部分计算。