Try Julia • Hacker News Board

Re: Try Julia

#101

Post by Stubb » Tue, Jan 28, 2014, 12:06 AM UTC

ihnorton wrote: post #100

Stubb wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No kidding—this is a show-stopper for me. I'm running Emacs with a split window for development. R runs in the bottom window, and the source file I'm editing is in the top. This lets me send code to R for evaluation and supports an incremental style of development. I'll slowly build up functions, and this sometimes requires editing functions that my current function uses. This style of development is typical for peop…

Julia certainly allows you to redefine functions, it simply doesn't trigger automatic upstream recompilation. https://gist.github.com/anonymous/8656066 > I'm running Emacs with a split window for development. R runs in the bottom window, and the source file I'm editing is in the top. This lets me send code to R for evaluation and supports an incremental style of development. I'll slowly build up functions, and this s…

> But I admit it's not immediately obvious, and we should probably put it front-and-center somewhere.

No, the authors should fix automatic recompilation. It's difficult for me to imagine how this bug even exists. The fact that it does coupled with the excuses and blaming the messenger surrounding it tells me that the authors don't know what they're doing and that I should steer clear for fear of running into similar flaws.

Good luck!

Re: Try Julia

#102

Post by simonster » Tue, Jan 28, 2014, 12:49 AM UTC

Stubb wrote: post #101

ihnorton wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Julia certainly allows you to redefine functions, it simply doesn't trigger automatic upstream recompilation. https://gist.github.com/anonymous/8656066 > I'm running Emacs with a split window for development. R runs in the bottom window, and the source file I'm editing is in the top. This lets me send code to R for evaluation and supports an incremental style of development. I'll slowly build up functions, and this s…

> But I admit it's not immediately obvious, and we should probably put it front-and-center somewhere. No, the authors should fix automatic recompilation. It's difficult for me to imagine how this bug even exists. The fact that it does coupled with the excuses and blaming the messenger surrounding it tells me that the authors don't know what they're doing and that I should steer clear for fear of running into similar…

If you can't adapt your workflow to work around the current shortcomings of Julia as a language, it's perfectly reasonable to complain about that. What is frustrating people in this thread is that you are implying that because automatic recompilation of dependent functions isn't implemented (in a language that is not yet production quality nor represented as such), the authors must be mentally deficient. You are receiving a vocal response not because we want to sweep Julia's shortcomings under the rug, but because we know that Julia's authors are quite intelligent people and we disagree that the absence of this feature at this time reflects poorly on them. I hope that, once Julia reaches v1.0 and has proper recompilation of dependent functions, you'll give it another shot.

Re: Try Julia

#103

Post by reeses » Tue, Jan 28, 2014, 3:49 AM UTC

ihnorton wrote: post #50

acangiano wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point wasn't that it can't be done. My point was about usability and what programmers have come to expect from a modern language. I understand that things get trickier when trying to implement arbitrary-precision arithmetic while keeping performance high.

Do you have an example of a language with arbitrary-precision overflow by default and comparable performance?

Every conformant non-toy Common Lisp implementation?

Re: Try Julia

#104

Post by Stubb » Tue, Jan 28, 2014, 1:41 PM UTC

simonster wrote: post #102

Stubb wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I admit it's not immediately obvious, and we should probably put it front-and-center somewhere. No, the authors should fix automatic recompilation. It's difficult for me to imagine how this bug even exists. The fact that it does coupled with the excuses and blaming the messenger surrounding it tells me that the authors don't know what they're doing and that I should steer clear for fear of running into similar…

If you can't adapt your workflow to work around the current shortcomings of Julia as a language, it's perfectly reasonable to complain about that. What is frustrating people in this thread is that you are implying that because automatic recompilation of dependent functions isn't implemented (in a language that is not yet production quality nor represented as such), the authors must be mentally deficient. You are rece…

I'd suggest that the authors consider how this missing feature reflects on their efforts when people are forming first impressions. I've made my opinion clear, and the developer pals that I brought into the loop were, without exception, similarly aghast.

I'm reminded of how some Python devotees are unable to see how the v2.7/v3.x split turns of newcomers. The impression given is that the community can't make up its mind on which way to go and that the best approach is to avoid the language all together.

Re: Try Julia

#105

Post by coldtea » Tue, Jan 28, 2014, 3:59 PM UTC

Stubb wrote: post #104

simonster wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't adapt your workflow to work around the current shortcomings of Julia as a language, it's perfectly reasonable to complain about that. What is frustrating people in this thread is that you are implying that because automatic recompilation of dependent functions isn't implemented (in a language that is not yet production quality nor represented as such), the authors must be mentally deficient. You are rece…

I'd suggest that the authors consider how this missing feature reflects on their efforts when people are forming first impressions. I've made my opinion clear, and the developer pals that I brought into the loop were, without exception, similarly aghast. I'm reminded of how some Python devotees are unable to see how the v2.7/v3.x split turns of newcomers. The impression given is that the community can't make up its m…

>I'd suggest that the authors consider how this missing feature reflects on their efforts when people are forming first impressions.

I'd suggest you slow down on the entitlement.