Why does the scientific community still use Python2? I really

>>>/g/

>>8696345
because changing from print to print() is too challenging.

>>8696347
how is this /g/?

It's that one bad thing about Python that it's split into two versions. My solution is to use the python version which is invoked by default when you type "python" in terminal. For now it's version 2 usually. /g/ is about Information Technology usually, they have daily programming threads and programming by itself is not a science (even though there is a scientific approach to programming).

What are the alternatives for scientific computing?

>Fortran
Ancient

>MATLAB
Proprietary software

>C
You have to re-invent the wheel to get it to a point where it's comfortable to type matrix notation, etc. Although, its speed is bar none.

>>8697991
GNU Octave

>>8697991
scheme

>>8697994
Awful. None of the bells and whistles that makes MATLAB worth using; may as well use python or R.

>>8697991
Origin scripting language if you're super autismal enough.

>>8698267
What are the bells and whistles? Even if there's no equivalent of some function from matlab in octave, there are many packages made by community that may have the missing functions.
I disagree that Octave is in some significant way worse than Matlab.

>>8697855
Because you`re talking about technology.

>>8698294
>SCIENTIFIC computing
I don't think /g/ knows shit about numpy

>>8696345
>using vim and not emacs
why are you even bothering to breathe?

>>8697991
matlab is becoming the standard in most fields

>>8697991
what's wrong with fortran? just because it's old doesn't mean it's bad.

>>8698361
You're right. But, because it's so old, not a lot of people use it anymore. Unfortunately, that can be a determining factor of which language to use, as you might need to collaborate.

>>8698351
I'd say matlab WAS the standard in most fields (and may still be), but Python is quickly gaining popularity (at least, I know it is in numerical computing).

>>8698376
visualization is a pain in the ass in python compared to matlab and visualization is the most important feature of a scientific computing language in most fields

>>8698299
Since they probably study CS, at some point they probably had to compute something useful in Python and thus probably used numpy too.
It's not a complicated to use module and it's useful, practical.

>>8698345
C-x brofist

>>8698351
It is very popular in engineering and among scientist doing numerical computations. Python however is just behind it in popularity.

>>8698361
Fortran is one of those languages that will always be relevant in engineering and science, because there's so much useful software already written in it. However, ANSI C has nicer syntax and is also very useful.

>>8698388
You can always use gnuplot or some other external tool to make visualization, it's not necessary to have it as a feature of the language itself. Results are important.

>Why does the scientific community still use Python2?
Because some popular programs, toolkits and IDE's use it.

>>8698481
For some reason developers of the programs, toolkits and IDE's don't think it's necessary to port them to Python 3 and the question is why? Python 2 and 3 aren't that much different, probably many of the changes could be made automatically.

engineering undergrad here. what language should i code in? MATLAB?

>>8696345
A lot of very good libraries still only have support for Python 2.7

Gonna quote from a book I have on python here:

>Python 3 is the future of Python, and everyone is moving toward it. Python 2.7 will
nonetheless be around for many years to come (some installations still use Python 2.4
from 2004); its retirement date has been set at 2020

>The shift to Python 3.3+ has caused enough headaches for library developers that people
have been slow to port their code (with good reason), and therefore people have been
slow to adopt Python 3. This is mainly due to the complexities of switching from a mix of string and Unicode datatypes in complicated applications to the Unicode and byte
implementation in Python 3.

>Typically, when you want reproducible results based on a set of trusted libraries, you
don’t want to be at the bleeding edge. High performance Python developers are likely
to be using and trusting Python 2.7 for years to come.

>>8699355
Fucked up my greentext but you get the point.

>>8698485
If some toolkit was writting at MIT in 1998 for this and that STEM field --- some now standard API reaching into a now established computational blackbox --- nobody is there to rewrite it and substitute it on the download platform

>>8696345
>Why the fuck does Python2 still exist.
The real question is why does python3 exist?

>>8699355
When was that book published?
"Python3 is nice, but all the libraries are still Python2" was the prevailing opinion about five years ago. Nowadays you're more likely to find libraries that are 3-only than 2-only.