From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <86ei7pkmhj.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
References: <38899c887189359a27e790996ae92c00@terzarima.net>
	<78c41896424e345485cd1d783502fd9e@swcp.com>
	<86ei7pkmhj.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
Date: Thu,  3 Feb 2011 10:50:24 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinsVYBAi5RpnDVVKmvvU1RhgEwCOzvdSR2Ct2=q@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Floren <john@jfloren.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] Modern development language for Plan 9,
 WAS: Re: RESOLVED: recoving important header file rudely
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ab2e529a-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:21 AM,  <smiley@zenzebra.mv.com> wrote:
> EBo <ebo@sandien.com> writes:
>
>> Ah. Thanks for the info. =A0I asked because some of the physicists and
>> atmospheric scientists I work with are likely to insist on having
>> FORTRAN. =A0I still have not figured how I will deal with that if at
>> all.
>
> I thought those folks used languages like Matlab & Mathematica for
> analysis, modeling, etc. =A0At least those were what we used in the
> physics department @ RPI.
>

Matlab and Mathematica are great for quick stuff (loved Matlab for my
engineering courses) but parallel scientific computing still loves its
FORTRAN + MPI + LAPACK etc. The reason being that Matlab is extremely
easy to write... but is also slow, and limited to one machine. FORTRAN
is extremely primitive, but scientists like it because 1. It's simple
(no pesky lambdas etc), 2. They're familiar with it, and 3. It's very
efficient.

For similar reasons, C + MPI is also quite popular.

John