> I don't understand why the scientific community is so reluctant to embrace change.
Let's assume the opposite were true, and it was fast to embrace change. How much time would be spent on this change -- relearning, rewriting, refighting old bugs -- vs. actual work done?
Change is overhead. You do as little of it as necessary, and only when not changing starts costing a lot. Which means you change, but slowly.
As to Fortran, it will go away when something better comes along, and then it will do so slowly, for the aforementioned reasons.
Let's assume the opposite were true, and it was fast to embrace change. How much time would be spent on this change -- relearning, rewriting, refighting old bugs -- vs. actual work done?
Change is overhead. You do as little of it as necessary, and only when not changing starts costing a lot. Which means you change, but slowly.
As to Fortran, it will go away when something better comes along, and then it will do so slowly, for the aforementioned reasons.