From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:00:08 -0500 From: "William K. Josephson" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port Message-ID: <20071113000008.GA36372@mero.morphisms.net> References: <20071112233236.GA36132@mero.morphisms.net> <92c6ef4a96c74d6f19a6e4f23028752b@terzarima.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <92c6ef4a96c74d6f19a6e4f23028752b@terzarima.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Topicbox-Message-UUID: f474e26a-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 11:55:02PM +0000, Charles Forsyth wrote: > > Actually, a lot of scientists seem to use Fortran 90. > > Current versions of gfortran support (most of?) Fortran 95. > > i'm hoping that eventually there will be good languages > for scientists to use, but given that many C/C++ users migrated > to Java, perhaps the traffic is quite often in the wrong direction. > > more seriously, what are the statistics for the use of programming > systems in scientific applications? I haven't a clue as I don't interact much with the scientific computing crowd. Fortran is still the de facto standard for a variety of reasons. Despite the plethora of scripting languages, the barriers to entry for a new programming language are really quite high.