On 2009-01-30 16:14:23 +0100, Don <[email protected]> said:
Lars Kyllingstad wrote:
I think D is, or at least could be, the scientific programming language
of the future. Here's why -- and possibly how:
[...]
I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I think all that's
lacking is a bit of organisation. There are quite a lot of scientific
programmers here, including an impressive number of library developers.
We could really use a rallying point.
I also agree that D is an excellent language for scientific
computation, and an extra rallying point would be nice
The various splits of D make it more difficult that it should be (D1.0
vs D2.0, tango vs phobos), but it would be something nice to have.
As a pratical example of the difficulties at the moment I am working an
NUMA optimizations for example, and you need some system support, which
will go into tango, will it come to phobos? I hope so, but I don't know.
I am interested in making my code available to as many persons as
possible, and profit of code of others, so anything that goes in that
direction is good in my opinion, but on the other hand I am interested
in developing and using my code, not on testing it in other situations
that are not relevant for me.
For the moment this means D1.0 and tango for me, I am willing to make
some effort to be as independent as possible, but I am not sure how
well it will work.
A scientific package has to be tested, you need to trust your results
and having something that might not compile for others is not exactly
so attractive...
I wonder if it would make sense for Walter to create a NG dedicated to
scientific programming. digitalmars.D.sci or digitalmars.D.scientific
or digitalmars.D.math or similar.
I think that it is a good idea, I wonder about the number of users, but
I would for sure join to it
Fawzi
