On Friday, March 7, 2014 4:38:54 PM UTC-8, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 10:03:35 -0800 (PST), John Ladasky > <j...@sbcglobal.net> declaimed the following: > >> More than once, I have queried Google with the phrase "Why isn't FORTRAN >> dead yet?" For some reason, it lives on. I can't say that I understand >> why. > > Well, for one thing, no one can justify rewriting all the numerics > libraries... LAPACK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAPACK , NEC-2 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_Electromagnetics_Code (and likely > NEC-4).
I have used Numpy for years, and I'm pretty sure that Numpy calls LAPACK under the hood. But if that is true, then I get LAPACK as a pre-compiled binary. I didn't need a FORTRAN compiler until last week. If one or two specialized applications are the only reason we are keeping a 50 year-old programming language around, I would be tempted to rewrite those applications -- in C, at least. C's not dead yet! (It's just resting!) -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
