LogFAQs > #887163577

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Let's talk software for scientific computing and plotting
scar the 1 09/23/17 8:20:33 PM #34:	MutantJohn posted... COVxy posted... MutantJohn posted... Ah, basically not enough to be productive with it yet. Start learning it for real. I really don't see why it would be an appropriate language. I mean, if you need to code underlying software to do on the fly analysis for some hardware or something, I could see. But 99% of scientific computing does not deal with that. (and to my knowledge, people typically use FORTRAN for that, like TC noted) I was talking to a PhD student who needed 2 weeks of wall time to run her R code. I lol'd. Most scientists aren't good enough at programming to use C++ effectively but most all real code is backed by C++ and if you're using old libs, C and Fortran. Most scientists aren't using C++ because the longer execution time is greatly offset by the time saved from a much more expressive language. My background is game technology and software engineering, I'm well aware that C++ can outperform something like R or MATLAB. I'm also well aware that if I'd been working in C++ instead of MATLAB for these last two years, I wouldn't have gotten half as far as I have now. And you're a bit off on your comment about only old libs using C and FORTRAN. A lot of huge mainframe code is still FORTRAN, which motivates an up to date ecosystem of tools and libs. And a lot of embedded systems will typically run C on some Linux machine, so C++ isn't the clear replacement people thought it would be. --- Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two. <cite>scar the 1 posted [p:887163577] in Let's talk... [t:75803573]...</cite> <quote><cite>MutantJohn posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MutantJohn posted...</cite> <quote> Ah, basically not enough to be productive with it yet. Start learning it for real. </quote> I really don't see why it would be an appropriate language. I mean, if you need to code underlying software to do on the fly analysis for some hardware or something, I could see. But 99% of scientific computing does not deal with that. (and to my knowledge, people typically use FORTRAN for that, like TC noted)</quote> I was talking to a PhD student who needed 2 weeks of wall time to run her R code. I lol'd. Most scientists aren't good enough at programming to use C++ effectively but most all real code is backed by C++ and if you're using old libs, C and Fortran.</quote> Most scientists aren't using C++ because the longer execution time is greatly offset by the time saved from a much more expressive language. My background is game technology and software engineering, I'm well aware that C++ can outperform something like R or MATLAB. I'm also well aware that if I'd been working in C++ instead of MATLAB for these last two years, I wouldn't have gotten half as far as I have now. And you're a bit off on your comment about only old libs using C and FORTRAN. A lot of huge mainframe code is still FORTRAN, which motivates an up to date ecosystem of tools and libs. And a lot of embedded systems will typically run C on some Linux machine, so C++ isn't the clear replacement people thought it would be. --- Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1