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。

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。

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%)

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。

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.