# Conda toolchain for Fortran on Windows **URL:** \ **Category:** Uncategorized\ **Created:** [April 11, 2022, 3:18am UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/conda-toolchain-for-fortran-on-windows/3206 "2022-04-11T03:18:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![h-vetinari](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ebca7d/32.png) [@h-vetinari](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/h-vetinari)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2022, 4:46am UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/conda-toolchain-for-fortran-on-windows/3206/3 "2022-04-11T04:46:53Z")
> [@certik](#): > > There will always be other choices. In your opinion, why wouldn’t LFortran be able to work for SciPy? It’s certainly not a substantiated (much less authoritative) opinion. 😅 My reading of your answer I linked in the other thread was that LFortran is more focussed on the interactive usecase. If it can be used as a fully-independent fortran compiler then there’s no reason in principle against being able to use it to package software for conda-forge, though it would likely have to outperform flang in some way, because we try to stick with one compiler per language/platform (to keep our already-large build matrices from exploding even further). Sidenote: From a 100’000 foot view (i.e. ignoring many intricate differences/details because I just don’t know the respective projects nearly well enough) it would IMO be awesome if LFortran/flang could somehow be unified - at least to the extent that having a common infrastructure would accelerate (rather than hinder) the pursuit of each project’s individual goals (and maybe that’s simply not the case, but one can dream). > [@certik](#): > > Thanks for maintaining LLVM in conda-forge, I use it quite often and indeed it works great. Happy to hear it! 🙃 --- _[View the full topic](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/conda-toolchain-for-fortran-on-windows/3206)._