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。

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

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。

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。：）

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.

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。