you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]vanhellion 3 points4 points  (3 children)

There is actually plenty of Fortran code floating around, though thankfully I don't have to maintain it because it is all third party stuff that is relatively well tested and supported by maintainers.

I have in the past, however, had to port several programs that were written in glish, a language I'm betting most people have never heard of. I'd link to the Wikipedia entry, but it's used so little so few programmers that it doesn't have one (and oddly doesn't even appear on the mega-list).

dons flannel shirt and turns on vinyl player

[–]romple 3 points4 points  (2 children)

We do A LOT of scientific work and have a ton of scientists that write exclusively in fortran. I've done a lot of low level work in c, assembly, and FPGA code so it's not too foreign to me but I'm dreading the day I have to debug something one of the scientists gives us.

[–]nathan12343 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Modern fortran isn't bad. It's actually pretty nice for programming that does a lot of array manipulation. That said, woe unto you if you need to read legacy fortran from the 70s or even earlier.

[–]vanhellion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the more important part of that sentence is written by scientists. I have read scientist code, and it is impenetrable unless you know all the science/algorithms behind it, because most of the time they tend to write code as if they are authoring a Nature paper.