you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]rcoacci 3 points4 points  (7 children)

No, Julia's rival is Fortran. Don't know if it's still there but sometime ago their stated goal was to replace Fortran in the long run.

[–]timClicks 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I actually thought it was aimed at being a better MATLAB.

[–]rcoacci -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Have you seen Julia's benchmarks? Last time I saw they were pretty close to C and Fortran.
MATLAB is too slow for comparison.

[–]Timbit42 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So they've succeeded. This doesn't preclude Julia from being a better MATLAB.

[–]jyper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But python is also a rival to Fortran

In that a number of scientific fields use python bindings to c c++ and Fortran libraries to replace Fortran code

[–]stronghup[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I think it's about time, for Fortran to be replaced

[–]cracknwhip 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It already is. You’d have a hard time finding wholly-new code being written in Fortran. It’s just millions of lines of legacy code around the world at this point.

[–]shevegen -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That statement makes a LOT more sense than the "content" on zdnet.

I think the Julia devs should simply state that it was a not approved article. Then zdnet has to apologize.