Regrettably, any discussion of Fortran will be quickly filled with people who once had to write a couple of F77 programs in college and never got over it, never used a really nice Fortran compiler, and of the very few who actually knew the language has evolved in the last 50 years the vast majority of that minority couldn't name a single significant thing that changed in F90/F95 through Fortran 2018.

But they all have Opinions, which they are compelled to share.

C++ has evolved immensely in that same time. I still would NEVER use C++ for anything new, now that Rust exists.

Why should I use Fortran, for anything that isn't maintaining legacy code?

Rust might exist, but it isn't shipping in console devkits, or industry reference game engines, just to quote two examples where it has yet to achieve parity with C++.

Oh, there's the one I forgot: The "I don't know how to use that technology, therefore there is no use for it and no one should use it" guy. Least surprising thing ever it's from the rust crowd.

I’ve maintained Fortran codes before in my career.

I like modern C++ much better than Rust. I am 3 times more productive in it and don't have to fight the compiler for hours. And RAII is a simple idiom that prevents 95% of actual problems.

Your C++ is full of bugs that rustc was telling you about.

Including on LLVM backend used by Rust, I guess.

When is that fully bootstraped rustc coming?

Well yes, the code I didn't wrote (because I was 3x slower) surely has no bugs.

Fortran is nowadays a DSL for computational codes. If you don't know why you would or could use it, you're not the target audience for it.

Calling it a DSL is a bit rich given the history of computing but at least that way at least CS and developer types will know how to regard it.

I didn’t say it was illegible. I said legibility is paramount, and I don’t think it makes the right trade offs in that regard to be a great teaching language

It’s far more legible for numerics than a lot of languages, maybe except Julia and Chapel. Julia was just driven in large part by teaching mathematics at mit and I think that shows

I would go and say Fortran is pretty legible because it only has a handful of builtin keywords and none of the fancy stuff alot of other languages have.

Julia has the fancy stuff aswell as being very legible and also having a nice REPL for instant feedback which is usefull for people learning (as well as multiple notebook implementations Pluto.jl or Jupyter) Chapel has even more of the fancy stuff like multiple loop types for different kinds of parallelism which is just wildly cool.

A large share of the illegibility of Fortran code is actually just the aversion of numerics code to having meaningful variable names.

Something that also happens in languages like C and Go, while C has the same reason as Fortran, given the limitations of their early compilers, Go has no reason for single letter receivers.

I second this. When I worked on some older Fortran codes, I had to keep a cheat sheet for the variable names and what they meant or controlled. It definitely made the code hard to read.

Yeah, this isn't the case for any codes written since may be the 00s or even the late 90s, although I admit I haven't worked on a code that old recently.

Or Fortran 2023, the current standard.