[cfe-dev] [OT] Re: Clang should natively support fortran

[Yuri via cfe-dev]

On 06/22/2016 16:07, C Bergström wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> >From a user perspective jupyter appears to be a web app and you'd only
> need Chrome or some modern browser.. (wait does FreeBSB even have
> Chrome...). So unless I'm mistaken, this would only matter if their
> servers are running FreeBSD. (Which I doubt)

There is no user vs. "them", it is the local web server serving the 
local client.

>> And Jupiter is a pretty cool thing. There is also the symbolic computer
>> algebra Cadabra2 (http://cadabra.science) that also uses fortran in the
>> background. And many other packages use fortran too.
>>
>>
>> FreeBSD has a lot of advantages compared to Linux, OSX and Windows. For
>> example, on FreeBSD you can have a 100% open source system
> Licensing is a matter of opinion and not a technical merit. Please
> lets not bring religion into the discussion.

I am not religious. I am just saying that business reasoning is a thing 
in itself, which has no relation to what is technically superior.


>
> , and all Linux
>> distros always mix in some random third party-built binaries. This is a
>> security risk. FreeBSD doesn't just grab the latest versions of packages
>> from github like linux distros do. This is another security risk.
> I'm very far from linux advocate, but this is disappointing FUD

No it isn't, it is factually correct. You just never looked how linux 
packages are built.


>
> You can't
>> just blow this off, these are very significant advantages. And how can you
>> make a case for the business use of Windows or OSX on a computation farm?
> Windows and OSX Fortran is mostly from the development side. If you
> were a scientist and actually writing Fortran code every day you may
> understand this.

Sorry, I don't know what are you talking about.


>> Why add the licensing costs? It just doesn't make sense to me.
>>
>>
>> Following your logic, nobody should do any new things because there is some
>> gigantic industry already doing things some other way. Why even develop
>> clang if there is gcc that already compiles everything fine?
> Maybe this is just confusion between English and your native language..

English is my native language. Maybe it's your native language, Mr. 
Bergström, that is in the way?


> I was just trying to say that FreeBSD probably has more important
> things to focus on. Even if clang had Fortran support, I doubt anyone
> would use FreeBSD as their platform for building a cluster or
> scientific codes development.


You said this already, and I said that I respectfully disagreed.


Regards,

Yuri