<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>NMSPEC: A Fortran code for the sparticle and Higgs masses in the NMSSM with GUT scale boundary conditions · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/hep-ph_0612134/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/hep-ph_0612134/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>NMSPEC: A Fortran code for the sparticle and Higgs masses in the NMSSM with GUT scale boundary conditions — mentioned by hilbert42</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26455822</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:hep-ph_0612134:26455822</guid><pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2021 14:42:50 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;But this article isn&amp;#x27;t about fundamental algorithms being correctly-implemented in an endowment of legacy code, it&amp;#x27;s about defending a siloed language choice, which seems like an antiquated concern to me.&amp;quot; 1. The first comment I would make is that the headline premise is wrong or at least deliberately misleading. Let&amp;#x27;s start with a correction. I would very much doubt that climate models are written in programming languages from 1950s. The Fortran code of the 1950s was not that much like the Fortran code that I learned in the late 1960s, and that late 1960s code bears little resemblance with…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/hep-ph_0612134/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>hep-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
