LOL!!! (A good xkcd link always does that.) On Friday, December 26, 2014, Tomas Lycken <[email protected]> wrote:
> Duty calls...! > > http://xkcd.com/386/ > > On Friday, December 26, 2014 10:58:06 PM UTC+1, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >> >> Oh, man. Suggesting a different language on a language's mailing list – >> that's throwing down the gauntlet! I think I'll write a reply on the ceylon >> list about some of the factual claims about Julia. >> >> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Páll Haraldsson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I mentioned Julia as a good alternative to Ceylon language in their >>> forum (for linear algebra). >>> >>> First of all, I assume you could call Ceylon (in theory at least, or >>> vice versa, I don't know to much about Ceylon). And second, I'm not sure I >>> agree with the responses I got. It seems they (or I?) misunderstand Julia. >>> Am I wrong to think that Julia has all the important properties of "static >>> languages" and should really be considered as such? I'm still not sure >>> about (e.g.) this part "Julia does not have inheritance, so I could not >>> build complex hierarchies of classes". It seems to me Julia has type >>> hierarchies and I've not looked enough into multiple dispatch vs. >>> "conventional OO" to see if it has any big downsides. On its own or >>> interfacing with other OO languages, say C++. I do not care about every >>> conceivable OO feature such as C++'s multiple inheritance, just that you >>> have good abstraction capabilities (and can call other OO code in other >>> languages). >>> >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ceylon-users/Qs9m1SgdThI >>> >>> It seems to be that the module system is excellent (no worse than other >>> languages I know) and the exception handling. The data hiding part I'm >>> conflicted about. Are there any major trade-offs the designers regret >>> (related to large-scale) or would like to change (breaking code). >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Palli. >>> >>> >>
