[chaxor]

It's been my understanding that Fortran is loved by physicists due to it's procedural approach, and doesn't require learning objects and inheritance, etc.

There's a lot to learn in higher level physics, so having the simplest language, without tons of features to fiddle with, while also being very, very performant is preferable.

I have a feeling that much of this work end end up in Julia however.

[kjs3]

No. Fortran is loved by physicist because it has an excellent 'impedance match' for the problems they are trying to solve. It has a multi-decade track record of expressing physics problems so it's the computer lingua franca there. And it has an extensive, high-quality and (perhaps most of all) tested ecosystem they can work in. It's not rocket science (unless, of course, it is); right tool for the job and all that.

FWIW...Fortran has had explicit OOP features since at least the 2003 standard (e.g. "type extends"). You aren't "required" to learn those features to use Fortran, but that's true of any number of ostensibly OOP languages.

Lastly...endless people (virtually always non-physicists who wrote a couple of lines of Fortran-77 in college) are continuously popping into the conversation with "well of course dump musty old Fortran for the NewHotness language because ew Fortran". Hasn't happened yet, and the Fortran folks have evolved from -77 to -90, -95, -2003, -2008 and lately -2018, so why would it?

[tobmlt]

Modern Fortran has oop with one major design mistake:

They use % as the accessor instead of . (Yes I am joking around) ;)