3 ms·

Exactly. Fortran is fine and it has many advantages over Julia. It's not only the legacy code. For one Julia needs an humongous runtime. I can see in the futur

Exactly. Fortran is fine and it has many advantages over Julia. It's not only the legacy code. For one Julia needs an humongous runtime. I can see in the future a compiler from a Fortran number crunching routine to a webassembly SIMD-ready kernel. Julia in the browser is still a failure and not for a lack of effort. Fortran is much simpler to do. I tried to work in Julia and it has a whole lot of hidden annoying things, undocumented nuances, etc... I find myself wishing for a language between bare-bones Fortran and big-but-buggy Julia but I know it won't happen since the community is too small

jhgb 5y ago
> For one Julia needs an humongous runtime. To be fair, Julia needs that runtime precisely to generate compiled versions of polymorphic functions at run time, so as not to cause a combinatorial explosion of n-ary functions. Also, for interactivity, which includes adding new functions at run time. These are problems that Fortran isn't even trying to solve, so it's not quite fair to complain that Fortran doesn't require a runtime that solves them. But of course there seems to be a market for a way to generate a static binary for a Julia program under a closed world assumption that wouldn't require embedding a complete JIT compiler into the process.
amkkma 5y ago
Ask and you shall receive:https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/41936 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/41936 That giant runtime enables all sorts of features that are used by unparalleled julia packages. Soon TM you'll be able to emit runtime free static binaries if you don't need the dynamism. In fact, that's what the GPU compiler does already