Porting LAPACK is not necessarily slower. C, C++ and D languages have better performance ports that are faster than Fortran based LAPACK (numerical library stil

Porting LAPACK is not necessarily slower. C, C++ and D languages have better performance ports that are faster than Fortran based LAPACK (numerical library still being used by Matlab and Julia to this very day) [1][2]. Particularly, D language has a better performance port of LAPACK since more than 6 years ago and it should be much easier to be understood and maintained compared to Fortran, C or C++ ones [2][3]. Recently D introduced importC feature to natively support C, the de facto language for system programming. You can then just simply import and re-used the existing C programs and libraries as it is with all the bugs without introducing more bugs [4]. I hope already debunked the myth that Fortran is irreplaceable for numerical codes based on your arguments for good. [1]Vastly outperforming LAPACK with C++ metaprogramming: https://wordsandbuttons.online/vastly_outperforming_lapack_with_cpp_metaprogramming.html https://wordsandbuttons.online/vastly_outperforming_lapack_w... [2]Numeric age for D: Mir GLAS is faster than OpenBLAS and Eigen: http://blog.mir.dlang.io/glas/benchmark/openblas/2016/09/23/glas-gemm-benchmark.html http://blog.mir.dlang.io/glas/benchmark/openblas/2016/09/23/... [3]Commentary on "Outperforming LAPACK with C++ metaprogramming": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16257794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16257794 [4]Your next C compiler is a D compiler: Introducing DMD's ImportC: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33443615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33443615