3 ms·
> It's just zealotry of them going "eeew fortran that's like really really old". The developers of SciPy are maintaining a codebase that is 18% fortran, accord
by michaelt 3y ago
> It's just zealotry of them going "eeew fortran that's like really really old".
The developers of SciPy are maintaining a codebase that is 18% fortran, according to [1]. The only language that makes up a larger part of the codebase is python.
Don't you think it's possible their opinion on fortran is actually informed by quite a bit of experience?
[1] https://github.com/scipy/scipy/ https://github.com/scipy/scipy/
- bouchard 3y agoI don't believe anybody would argue against their reluctance for old FORTRAN 77 code; it's a PITA to deal with. The central issue is that their experience with the old Fortran doesn't translate to modern Fortran; they are two different beasts.
- ok123456 3y agoBuy a copy of plusfort.
- zaikunzhang 3y ago> The central issue is that their experience with the old Fortran doesn't translate to modern Fortran; they are two different beasts. This is so true! I hope anyone could spend a few minutes checking what modern Fortran is before blaming it. A good reference is https://fortran-lang.org/en/ https://fortran-lang.org/en/
- zaikunzhang 3y agoI guess one of the major issues is the compilation and packaging of the Fortran code. It is also my experience when developing PDFO ( https://www.pdfo.net/ https://www.pdfo.net/ ), the predecessor of PRIMA. This is also reflected by the following comment at https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/18118#issuecomment-1553273668 https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/18118#issuecomment-155... > The real maintenance burden is the compilation and the packaging not the code itself that we are carrying around.