|
|
|
|
|
|
by sega_sai
1842 days ago
|
|
|
I (and many in science) switched from C/PDL/IDL to Python in last 10 years because it was is the best tool, not for zealotry. Python vs Perl for science has nothing to do with c/c++/fortran. C/C++/fortran have their own place for science computations. Perl does not.
For anything involving any kind of numerics Python will be faster/better tested/will have more libraries/will have better visualisation capabilities, so there is no need for perl. Sure if you are only working with strings, you can use perl, but that's hardly scientific computing (not at least the field that I work in). |
|
|
It depends on the field. RNA/DNA, Polypeptids and proteins are just long chains of text, therefore Perl can deal easily with the problems of finding things, manipulating them to build a new chain or translating the chain to a different format. This is a significant chunk of what Bioinformatics do all the time, and Bioperl can manage it.
Also a big part of astronomy is analyzing or finding stars in a tridimensional matrix of space. PDL can be useful with that. Is not dificult to extract a slice of interest in the space matrix and focus our research on it. The main problem could be the lack of experienced people available having exactly this problem to solve.
I don't know if original Perl is very good or bad for that, but there are several Math modules that could have what you want and be easily connected with the former stuff. In fact there are a lot of them to choose:
https://metacpan.org/search?q=Math
Raku at least has a Math::Model module to simulate Physics stuff. I ignore how developed is the module or how its perform would compare with Pyton's similar stuff