Live data from Hacker News

Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

julialang.org

1–10 of 144 posts

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#5
I'm currently writing code with it. The language is really (really) nice to work with.

- But the REPL lacks the ability to redefine structs on the go (which I can understand as it'd be tough to do, or simply not possible). But that, combined with the slow start up time makes life a bit harder than it should. Fortunately, one doesn't redefine its structs every day.

- There are also lots of libraries but the quality of the documentation is often sub par. For a newcomer like me, working examples would be great. For example, if you use the plots library, you'll have hard time finding a list of all possible plots (the documentation talks about lots of things, but strangely, not a list of possible charts). I've also looked at doing linear regression and GLM and, again, you've code libraries but the examples are rare...

- the startup time are still quite slow but that's ok because somehow you adapt your workflow around.

- being able to use greek symbols as identifiers is super cool but your editor as to manage that, else you'll have to memorize shortcuts...

But still, I keep on using it, it's much faster for my use case (data processing). I mean, faster than r or Python (for which I could write fast code but that'd mean I'd have to change the way it is written)

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#6
post #5

I'm currently writing code with it. The language is really (really) nice to work with. - But the REPL lacks the ability to redefine structs on the go (which I can understand as it'd be tough to do, or simply not possible). But that, combined with the slow start up time makes life a bit harder than it should. Fortunately, one doesn't redefine its structs every day. - There are also lots of libraries but the quality of…

> But the REPL lacks the ability to redefine structs on the go (which I can understand as it'd be tough to do, or simply not possible). But that, combined with the slow start up time makes life a bit harder than it should. Fortunately, one doesn't redefine its structs every day.

It is possible to redefine structs in Pluto.jl which is also a productivity booster overall due to its reactivity.

> For example, if you use the plots library, you'll have hard time finding a list of all possible plots (the documentation talks about lots of things, but strangely, not a list of possible charts).

The Makie.jl plotting library has really great docs nowadays: https://makie.juliaplots.org/stable/examples/plotting_functi...

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#7
I cannot remember exactly when I discovered Julia or where. But I remember I got intrigued early on and wrote a blogpost about 9 years ago on Tumblr, which is still there comparing Julia to Ruby of all things: https://assoc.tumblr.com/post/70484963303/getting-comfortabl...

The normal thing today is comparing Julia to R, Matlab and Python. But my intro to Julia was actually trying to convert code examples in the O'Reilly book: "Exploring Everyday Things with R and Ruby: Learning About Everyday Things" to Julia.

I thought that worked quite nicely and that the Julia code looked a lot nicer than the Ruby code. It made me write a follow up blog post a few days later: https://assoc.tumblr.com/post/71454527084/cool-things-you-ca...

Unlike your typical Julia user I was always into programming because I wanted to make computer games. I liked playing with Game engine architectures and those exposed me to the problem of handling collision between objects of different types. Multiple-dispatch solves that problem very elegantly. Traditional object-oriented languages are pretty bad at it.

From the perspective of writing clean and expressive code, this really won me over to Julia early on before I had done much serious work with it.

It became my goto language for writing Unix tools, replacing Go, Ruby and Python.

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#8
I started using Julia in 2017, and as a physics student who saw Python, Mathematica, and Matlab as a series of tools that I had to pull out sometimes to solve specific problems, it came as a great shock to me that I was suddenly interested in Julia for it's own sake.

It's not an overstatement to say that this language totally changed my relationship with computers and programming.

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#9
post #6
post #5

I'm currently writing code with it. The language is really (really) nice to work with. - But the REPL lacks the ability to redefine structs on the go (which I can understand as it'd be tough to do, or simply not possible). But that, combined with the slow start up time makes life a bit harder than it should. Fortunately, one doesn't redefine its structs every day. - There are also lots of libraries but the quality of…

> But the REPL lacks the ability to redefine structs on the go (which I can understand as it'd be tough to do, or simply not possible). But that, combined with the slow start up time makes life a bit harder than it should. Fortunately, one doesn't redefine its structs every day. It is possible to redefine structs in Pluto.jl which is also a productivity booster overall due to its reactivity. > For example, if you use…

I really want revise to be able to be able to redefine structs as well. It would make package development a lot easier.

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#10
post #5

I'm currently writing code with it. The language is really (really) nice to work with. - But the REPL lacks the ability to redefine structs on the go (which I can understand as it'd be tough to do, or simply not possible). But that, combined with the slow start up time makes life a bit harder than it should. Fortunately, one doesn't redefine its structs every day. - There are also lots of libraries but the quality of…

Yeah, having Revise.jl be able to redefine types would be delightful.
Post reply on HN