On Wednesday, 7 September 2016 at 20:57:03 UTC, data pulverizer
wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 September 2016 at 20:29:51 UTC, deXtoRious
wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 September 2016 at 19:19:23 UTC, data
pulverizer wrote:
The "One language to rule them all" motif of Julia has hit
the rocks; one reason is because they now realize that their
language is being held back because the compiler cannot infer
certain types for example:
http://www.johnmyleswhite.com/notebook/2015/11/28/why-julias-dataframes-are-still-slow/
As an avid user of Julia, I'm going to have to disagree very
strongly with this statement. The language is progressing very
nicely and while it doesn't aim to be the best choice for
every programming task imaginable...
Ahem (http://www.wired.com/2014/02/julia/), I'm not saying that
the Julia founders approved that title, we all know how the
press can inflate things, but there was a certain rhetoric that
Julia was creating something super-special that would change
everything.
That's just typical press nonsense, and even they quote Bezanson
saying how Julia isn't at all suited to a whole host of
applications. Julia certainly has (justifiable, imho, though only
time will tell) aspirations of being useful in certain areas of
general computing, not just scientific code, but they are far
from universal applicability, let alone optimality. If nothing
else, it's an interesting example of thinking rather far outside
the usual box of language design, one with demonstrable real
world applications.
