Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Julia 1.0

julialang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 446 posts

Re: Julia 1.0

#91

Post by vectorEQ »

say you have an array of memory items. [][][][][][] this will be marked with some marker (your varible names contain this offset into memory.. logical. thats how computer works.)

then in computer, (assembly) you will request an element by saying for example base_offset+(1elem_len). that would make it logical to use 0 as an offset, because then you can use 'nelem_len' as a generic number to incrememnt the offset by to select array elements.

thus for a computer and how it functions, 0-based array would make more sense, and any other thing, would just be some overlay over how a computer works just to make it more human readable....

computers dont care for what is first idex, it will always equate to base+n*elem_len to have to find the actual location in memory...

if people have been discussing that for decades and what is better, it's just another example of people not understanding what is an opinion,and what is objectivley true... none is better, your compiler is taking care of business, really it is, and no longer like it was 1999... they have been patched many times!

Re: Julia 1.0

#93

Post by ur-whale »

dagw wrote: post #46
typon wrote: post #42

Reading through the docs, looks like they have 1-indexed arrays..?

That is correct, mainly due to coming from Fortran and Matlab background. However they also have offset arrays (like in Fortran) if you need arrays that start on a different index.

Does that work properly with multi-dimensional arrays?

Re: Julia 1.0

#95

Post by kleff »

renox wrote: post #80
Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I agree with your comments about error handling. It’s far from ideal in non-interactive contexts. It’s especially disappointing since you could easily imagine something like Julia replicating Python’s success at transitioning code from interaction (e.g. Jupyter notebook) to production. I initially defended the choice, but I now agree that 1-based indexing now seems like a poor choice since Julia has become some…

> I initially defended the choice, but I now agree that 1-based indexing now seems like a poor choice since Julia has become something more than the original mission of a better MATLAB or Octave. It’s a, admittedly, minor tragedy of Julia’s success Especially since it would have been very easy to 'do it like Ada' and allow any start index by default (I have use Lua and it's really annoying to use an extension languag…

Even Visual Basic (of all things) allowed you to set it with Option Base. Never really understood why its not supported in more languages...

Re: Julia 1.0

#96

Post by sgt101 »

ChrisFoster wrote: post #29
sgt101 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The type system, which really encourages development of safe, reusable code. Also the type system can be a useful reusable solver. I strongly prefer the dependency management system to python's efforts. I like the strong arithmetic precision management facilities. Dynamic programming is interesting, but I'm not sure that its great for collaboration.

Dependency management for packages just got hugely better with the release of Pkg3 (now simply Pkg) as part of 0.7 / 1.0.

yes - 0.7 and the rigorous and (at a glance) hard to break system were a big thing for me; I've spent so many hours trying to make code tree A compile with code tree B in so many different languages in the past...

Re: Julia 1.0

#97

Post by ChrisRackauckas »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #84
taliesinb wrote: post #49

I have high hopes for Julia becoming the defacto open-source scientific language. Despite Python and R both having a massive head start, I'm willing to bet that talented engineers and scientists will be drawn to Julia to implement their next-generation frameworks owing to the powerful features that it offers. For example, the fact that an array of unions such as Array{Union{Missing,T}} is represented in memory as a m…

I am a machine learning library developer and I don’t share your feelings. For example the specific example you cite, I feel, should never be something scientists or engineers actively think about, only language implementers. Once you make that distinction, then whether you write it as a Cython module exposed in Python or you can use native language features to do it in Julia, nobody cares. It’s encapsulated away fro…

It's offering something completely different because of the compatibility, compile-time controls, and ability to fully interprocedurally optimize.

http://www.stochasticlifestyle.com/why-numba-and-cython-are-...

Re: Julia 1.0

#98

Post by myrryr »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #84
taliesinb wrote: post #49

I have high hopes for Julia becoming the defacto open-source scientific language. Despite Python and R both having a massive head start, I'm willing to bet that talented engineers and scientists will be drawn to Julia to implement their next-generation frameworks owing to the powerful features that it offers. For example, the fact that an array of unions such as Array{Union{Missing,T}} is represented in memory as a m…

I am a machine learning library developer and I don’t share your feelings. For example the specific example you cite, I feel, should never be something scientists or engineers actively think about, only language implementers. Once you make that distinction, then whether you write it as a Cython module exposed in Python or you can use native language features to do it in Julia, nobody cares. It’s encapsulated away fro…

Library devs also need to actively think about memory layout if they are after crazy amounts of speed.

Re: Julia 1.0

#99

Post by babahoyo »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #84
taliesinb wrote: post #49

I have high hopes for Julia becoming the defacto open-source scientific language. Despite Python and R both having a massive head start, I'm willing to bet that talented engineers and scientists will be drawn to Julia to implement their next-generation frameworks owing to the powerful features that it offers. For example, the fact that an array of unions such as Array{Union{Missing,T}} is represented in memory as a m…

I am a machine learning library developer and I don’t share your feelings. For example the specific example you cite, I feel, should never be something scientists or engineers actively think about, only language implementers. Once you make that distinction, then whether you write it as a Cython module exposed in Python or you can use native language features to do it in Julia, nobody cares. It’s encapsulated away fro…

Many scientists might have mathematical ideas about how an operation should be done, but dont want to learn C++ to implement them. We create a division between scientists and programmers that hurts productivity.

Re: Julia 1.0

#100

Post by KenoFischer »

LittlePeter wrote: post #82

Every release I am downloading Julia and trying to wrestle through some tutorials. Every time (0.4.0, 0.6.0, 1.0.0) I get stuck at some error, usually during the pre-compiling of some dependency. For example, I have downloaded julia-1.0.0. I try to follow this tutorial here, linked in this post by someone: http://juliadb.org/latest/manual/tutorial.html Then I do this and get an error: julia> using JuliaDB [ Info: Pre…

After every release the package ecosystem usually takes a few weeks to catch up. I'd recommend trying 0.6 until then.
Post reply on HN