3 ms·
Yes, but I think not as much as advocates of it would suggest.
by physicsguy 5y ago
Yes, but I think not as much as advocates of it would suggest.
- pjmlp 5y agoJust like SQL, it suffices to rule on one specific use case to keep being used.
- ngcc_hk 5y agoSQL is based on set theory and there is a reason for its existence. FORTRAN is based on legacy. Still remember the I j k and 80 columns things ... To be honest reading https://github.com/fortran-lang/fpm/blob/master/src/fpm_backend.f90 https://github.com/fortran-lang/fpm/blob/master/src/fpm_back... the only thing look like the old fortran I know is integer I j and do loop. No go to I guess.
- pjmlp 5y agoApparently you haven't kept up with times. https://www.manning.com/books/modern-fortran https://www.manning.com/books/modern-fortran
- physicsguy 5y agoYeah exactly - it's great for numerical computing. I get a bit annoyed by Fortran advocates complaining about people using C++/Python instead of it, when there aren't libraries for doing really basic things. I think Fpm is a really good step in the right direction though.
- certik 5y agoI am a Fortran advocate, but I don't complain that people use C++ or Python. I use C++ and Python myself, both are great languages. I agree Fortran is missing the library ecosystem, and that is why we started fpm. It takes years to fix this problem.