Re:Why physicists still use Fortran
by ryescienceguy on Monday December 19, 2016 @12:09AM
(#13209592)
Hard to say, but I'm looking at 39 contributors, 539 stars, 3,005 commits [1]. Nicely documented, pretty extensive list of users, CI on Linux and Windows. But with that said, yes, I've also dealt with absolutely horrendous academic C++.
Re:Why physicists still use Fortran
by greglindahl on Monday December 19, 2016 @12:21AM
(#13209629)
Are there any users that are science academics? I wasn't talking about computer scientists / computer graphics / visualization researchers at all in this thread; they do great with C++. I clicked on a bunch of links of the users of this library and didn't see any physics, astronomy, chemistry, fluid dynamics, etc.
Re:Why physicists still use Fortran
by ryescienceguy on Monday December 19, 2016 @01:49AM
(#13209884)
Not sure! We are using it in (non-academic) CFD work.
Re:Why physicists still use Fortran
by greglindahl on Monday December 19, 2016 @02:08AM
(#13209942)
So it sounds like you're somewhat like the folks I'm talking about, even if the other users of this code are not... but have you had a lot of turnover of your coders, like grad students and postdocs that turn over every 2-4 years? Because that was the full nature of my complaint: science not-computer-scientists over several maintainers doing better in Fortran.
I agree that meshing is definitely a difficult situation; I've never seen a solution (for unusual geometry) that I liked much. Things that can pretend to be rectangular? No problem. Very adaptive meshes? Argh.