News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on NASA: High Performance Fast Computing Challenge. Parent comment

Re:NASA: High Performance Fast Computing Challenge by gravypod on Thursday May 04, 2017 @03:44PM (#14268073)
No that's a single example for a single use case. There are many languages better then Fortran for their use case.

Also, it's not correct to say that C++ only just got a feature fortran had. It only just got the feature in it's standard library. There have existed complex number libraries for C++ for years.

Things like the GSL have been around since 1996.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NASA: High Performance Fast Computing Challenge by walshemj on Thursday May 04, 2017 @04:04PM (#14268260)
Not to sound snarky but only know having this as standard and relying on for third party libararies from 1996 doesn't exactly help your point
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NASA: High Performance Fast Computing Challenge by gravypod on Thursday May 04, 2017 @04:11PM (#14268323)
GSL is the Gnu Scientific Library. It's been around since 1996. Check this for more info: https://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NASA: High Performance Fast Computing Challenge by scottlocklin on Thursday May 04, 2017 @05:43PM (#14269138)
It is also practically speaking kind of worthless for actual numerics compared to, say, LAPACK.

People who grouse about Fortran have almost never used it for its intended purpose. It solves a problem, and does so very well. People who mention Julia, Python or Rust as replacements for Fortran simply do not know what they're talking about. You can do equivalent things in C++ or C, but you really shouldn't most of the time. Just as you shouldn't try to code up fancy data structures in Fortran.

[ Parent | on HN ]