Scientific computing and parallel computing C++23/C++26

M.M. matus at
Wed Jan 19 08:56:03 UTC 2022

On Wednesday, 19 January 2022 at 07:29:23 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 January 2022 at 07:24:09 UTC, M.M. wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 19 January 2022 at 06:58:55 UTC, Paulo Pinto 
>> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 19 January 2022 at 04:45:20 UTC, forkit wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 18 January 2022 at 22:21:40 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
>>>> Grøstad wrote:
>>>>> ...D's potential strength here is not so much in being able 
>>>>> to bind to C++ in a limited fashion (like Python), but 
>>>>> being able to port C++ to D and improve on it. To get there 
>>>>> you need feature parity, which is what this thread is about.
>>>> Not just 'feature' parity, but 'performance' parity too:
>>>> "Broad adoption of high-level languages by the scientific 
>>>> community is unlikely without compiler optimizations to 
>>>> mitigate the performance penalties these languages 
>>>> abstractions impose." - 
>>> That paper is from 2008, meanwhile in 2021,
>>> This is what D has to compete against, not only C++ with the 
>>> existing SYSCL/CUDA tooling and their ongoing integration 
>>> into ISO C++.
>> I am not sure what the article tells: that Julia is now 
>> popular and people use it? Or that D (and other languages) 
>> need to compete against self-written PR articles?
>> (Many system-programming languages can achieve the same 
>> performance as what the article describes, when several 
>> research institutes combine forces on just that.)
>> But yes, Julia's focus on small niche, and its popularity in 
>> that niche makes it attractive for contributors.
> You might call it self-written PR articles, or educate yourself 
> who is using it.
> versus 
> Also I did mention C++, which you glossed over on your 
> eagerness to devalue Julia's market domain versus D among HPC 
> communities.
> As someone that spent two years at ATLAS TDAQ HLT, I know which 
> languages those folks would be adopting, but hey it is a piece 
> of self-written PR.

I am sorry that you took my post as an attack:
- the article itself is written by Julia people (the bottom of 
the article says "Source: Julia Computing"). Using this fact to 
tell me to "educate myself on a non-relevant topic, i.e., on who 
uses Julia" seems quite irrelevant to my note on who wrote the 
text. (Being sarcastic now: I am sure that whatever education I 
will do from now on till the end of my life will not change who 
wrote the article)
- I also acknowledged that Julia is popular in the scientific 

I do not understand where in my text I devalue Julia as a 
(Again, I do not like that self-written articles are used in 
arguments. But I did not say anything about Julia "being not 

What I did not write, but think, is that Julia is a very nice 
project, and I am a fan of its development.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list