Scientific computing with D

[Fawzi Mohamed]

On 2009-01-30 16:14:23 +0100, Don <nospam at nospam.com> said:

> Lars Kyllingstad wrote:
>> I think D is, or at least could be, the scientific programming language 
>> of the future. Here's why -- and possibly how:
>> [...]
> 
> I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I think all that's 
> lacking is a bit of organisation. There are quite a lot of scientific 
> programmers here, including an impressive number of library developers. 
> We could really use a rallying point.

I also agree that D is an excellent language for scientific 
computation, and an extra rallying point would be nice

The various splits of D make it more difficult that it should be (D1.0 
vs D2.0, tango vs phobos), but it would be something nice to have.

As a pratical example of the difficulties at the moment I am working an 
NUMA optimizations for example, and you need some system support, which 
will go into tango, will it come to phobos? I hope so, but I don't know.
I am interested in making my code available to as many persons as 
possible, and profit of code of others, so anything that goes in that 
direction is good in my opinion, but on the other hand I am interested 
in developing and using my code, not on testing it in other situations 
that are not relevant for me.
For the moment this means D1.0 and tango for me, I am willing to make 
some effort to be as independent as possible, but I am not sure how 
well it will work.
A scientific package has to be tested, you need to trust your results 
and having something that might not compile for others is not exactly 
so attractive...

> I wonder if it would make sense for Walter to create a NG dedicated to 
> scientific programming. digitalmars.D.sci or digitalmars.D.scientific 
> or digitalmars.D.math or similar.

I think that it is a good idea, I wonder about the number of users, but 
I would for sure join to it

Fawzi