4 ms·

> Hopefully the scientific stack will be rewritten in better languages like Go, Lisp, Ocaml, etc. You are talking about people who still use Fortran… Scientist

> Hopefully the scientific stack will be rewritten in better languages like Go, Lisp, Ocaml, etc. You are talking about people who still use Fortran… Scientists ain't got any time to migrate to another framework every week.

bayindirh 2y ago
FORTRAN is actually still developed and wicked fast for the things its users do with it. It's neither left behind nor obsolete.
- tliltocatl 2y ago
  Exactly, but it's undeniable that even updated it does have some ergonomics issues. It just that its users care less about developer ergonomics. Afaik, there were plenty of attempts to build a replacement (i. e. Fortress), didn't catch on.
  - pantsforbirds 2y ago
    Fortran is in a weird spot. It's incredible for writing the hardest parts of the programs it's used for, but it honestly sucks for doing the "boring" parts. Doing heavy vectorized workloads in Fortran is nice, but doing I/O, organizing code, using any data structure that isn't essentially an array of some sort, etc. all suck.
    - pklausler 2y ago
      It’s a great language for calculating things, not so great for doing things.
  - igouy 2y ago
    > plenty of attempts to build a replacement Chapel vs Fortran https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/chapel-ifx.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... Julia vs Fortran https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/julia-ifx.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
- rbanffy 2y ago
  Alongside COBOL, it’s probably going to live forever.
pjmlp 2y ago
At least Fortran 2023 is much better than raw Python with CPython.
- pklausler 2y ago
  Are you somehow compiling code with a PDF of the new standard? It’s not available in real compilers.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    While not everything might be available, I was making the point that this isn't FORTRAN 66 in punch cards.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      There is A LOT of FORTRAN 77 code around. I think most of the FORTRAN I’ve seen is 77.
      - pjmlp 2y ago
        I also see more C89, C++03, Java 8 and C# 7 than I would like to. Yet that doesn't invalidate what is actually available.
xbdaG 2y ago
In a way they would be better off using Fortran instead of Python. Every scientific result that relies on a snapshot of 50 packages (whose resolution in conda is an NP-hard problem) should be qualified with an added hypothesis: Given Python-3.x.y and [50 version numbers of packages], we arrive at the following result. Even in Python itself the random number generator was broken for more than a year by one of the persons who actively mob people for rejecting their patches (in which they might have a monetary interest since they got paid for many of their patches, making it a gigantic conflict of interest). This invalidated many scientific results from that period.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > This invalidated many scientific results from that period. Did it invalidate any conclusions or it was just corrected results?
pantsforbirds 2y ago
There is a reason Fortran has survived so long. Writing matrix/vector heavy code in Fortran is (imo) still more pleasant than C, even when accounting for the idiosyncracies around writing a Fortran program in general. The skill floor is significantly lower for writing very high-performance code.

bayindirh 2y ago

FORTRAN is actually still developed and wicked fast for the things its users do with it. It's neither left behind nor obsolete.

tliltocatl 2y ago
Exactly, but it's undeniable that even updated it does have some ergonomics issues. It just that its users care less about developer ergonomics. Afaik, there were plenty of attempts to build a replacement (i. e. Fortress), didn't catch on.
- pantsforbirds 2y ago
  Fortran is in a weird spot. It's incredible for writing the hardest parts of the programs it's used for, but it honestly sucks for doing the "boring" parts. Doing heavy vectorized workloads in Fortran is nice, but doing I/O, organizing code, using any data structure that isn't essentially an array of some sort, etc. all suck.
  - pklausler 2y ago
    It’s a great language for calculating things, not so great for doing things.
- igouy 2y ago
  > plenty of attempts to build a replacement Chapel vs Fortran https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/chapel-ifx.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... Julia vs Fortran https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/julia-ifx.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
rbanffy 2y ago
Alongside COBOL, it’s probably going to live forever.

pjmlp 2y ago

At least Fortran 2023 is much better than raw Python with CPython.

pklausler 2y ago
Are you somehow compiling code with a PDF of the new standard? It’s not available in real compilers.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  While not everything might be available, I was making the point that this isn't FORTRAN 66 in punch cards.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    There is A LOT of FORTRAN 77 code around. I think most of the FORTRAN I’ve seen is 77.
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      I also see more C89, C++03, Java 8 and C# 7 than I would like to. Yet that doesn't invalidate what is actually available.

xbdaG 2y ago

In a way they would be better off using Fortran instead of Python. Every scientific result that relies on a snapshot of 50 packages (whose resolution in conda is an NP-hard problem) should be qualified with an added hypothesis: Given Python-3.x.y and [50 version numbers of packages], we arrive at the following result. Even in Python itself the random number generator was broken for more than a year by one of the persons who actively mob people for rejecting their patches (in which they might have a monetary interest since they got paid for many of their patches, making it a gigantic conflict of interest). This invalidated many scientific results from that period.

rbanffy 2y ago
> This invalidated many scientific results from that period. Did it invalidate any conclusions or it was just corrected results?

pantsforbirds 2y ago

There is a reason Fortran has survived so long. Writing matrix/vector heavy code in Fortran is (imo) still more pleasant than C, even when accounting for the idiosyncracies around writing a Fortran program in general. The skill floor is significantly lower for writing very high-performance code.