News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why physicists still use Fortran (2015) by cm2187 on Sunday October 15, 2017 @12:53PM (#15477940)
I needed a .net math library. My IT department insisted on my trying a wrapper around a Fortran library (I believe purely because they had a license already). All the classes and variables names are short hexadecimals strings. None of the interface is idiomatic to .net (the library only has void returning methods which pass error codes as byref arguments instead of using exceptions, requesting a parameter for the length of any array passed as argument instead of reading it from the array), etc...

Basically I refused to touch this thing, using a library which makes the code unreadable is going to be a bug magnet. I would be surprised if I was the only one having this reaction to 1960s coding convention surfacing in modern code.

So selling new licenses should be a good enough reason.

Re:Why physicists still use Fortran (2015) by krallja on Sunday October 15, 2017 @01:50PM (#15478173)
Your .NET wrapper doesn't need to expose the same name or calling convention. That's why you use a wrapper: to abstract away distasteful non-idiomatic decisions in the wrapped API.
Re:Why physicists still use Fortran (2015) by ryl00 on Sunday October 15, 2017 @01:28PM (#15478067)
Sounds like your IT department botched the wrapper. Wouldn't a more successful candidate likely just have used an abstraction layer between the .net conventions you were expecting and whatever the native code was doing?
Re:Why physicists still use Fortran (2015) by cm2187 on Sunday October 15, 2017 @01:34PM (#15478091)
Nope, the library itself is sold that way. See the documentation:

https://www.nag.co.uk/numeric/DT/nagdotnet_dtw02/html/conten...

Re:Why physicists still use Fortran (2015) by ryl00 on Sunday October 15, 2017 @01:47PM (#15478160)
Ah I see, makes more sense. It would be a massive undertaking to abstract that API into something else.