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

Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

julialang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 144 posts

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#11

Post by KenoFischer »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #9
huijzer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I described what needs to happen in https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/40399, but so far nobody has had the time to implement it.

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#12

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #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'Rei…

For unix tools, I assume you mean command line tools? In which case how do you ameliorate the long startup time on each invocation?

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#13

Post by komuher »

I can reflect on like past few years (like 1.5 year ago i was disappointed by julia lack of progres but a lot have changed).

Julia is getting usable even in "normal" applications not only academic stuff, as person who come back after 1.5/2 years to julia i feel like i can use it again in my job cause it is a lot more stable at have a lot of new neat futures + CUDA.jl is amazing.

I hope Julia team will still explore a bit more static type inference and full AOT compilation if language got full support for AOT it'll be a perfect deal for me :).

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#14

Post by tomrod »

ViralBShah wrote: post #4
pella wrote: post #3

"14 February 2012" is a birthday?

In a way - because the original blog post was https://julialang.org/blog/2012/02/why-we-created-julia/

The fact yall are still working at improving it ten years later, with substantial progress, gives me hope for its longer term adoption in the future.

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#15

Post by moelf »

wiz21c wrote: 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…

there's also https://docs.juliaplots.org/latest/generated/gr/ in the docs which is basically "all the kinds of plots you can make" (see the other comment for Makie gallary)

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#16

Post by appleiigs »

I'm hoping Julia gets its killer app that can launch it to the next level like Rails or Numpy. Julia has a lot of pleasantries, but not enough to pry me away from what I'm productive with. There's certain amount of switching cost that needs to be overcome.

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#17

Post by cube2222 »

I've been working through the Statistical Rethinking[0] course with Julia recently and so far the language has been really intuitive, same for the libraries (Turing, Distributions). And it's nice that you don't have to vectorize your code and can use normal for-loops.

Also, the way dynamic dispatch + specialization work is beautiful.

[0]:https://github.com/rmcelreath/stat_rethinking_2022

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#19

Post by ChrisRackauckas »

moelf wrote: post #15
wiz21c wrote: 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…

there's also https://docs.juliaplots.org/latest/generated/gr/ in the docs which is basically "all the kinds of plots you can make" (see the other comment for Makie gallary)

Examples and tutorials should go first. Some parts of the ecosystem, for some reason, put the manual and descriptions first. Give people code, then give people a manual for if they want to dig further. Thankfully, this is rather easy to fix.

Re: Why We Use Julia, 10 Years Later

#20

Post by ChrisRackauckas »

komuher wrote: post #13

I can reflect on like past few years (like 1.5 year ago i was disappointed by julia lack of progres but a lot have changed). Julia is getting usable even in "normal" applications not only academic stuff, as person who come back after 1.5/2 years to julia i feel like i can use it again in my job cause it is a lot more stable at have a lot of new neat futures + CUDA.jl is amazing. I hope Julia team will still explore a…

StaticCompiler.jl is making huge strides. 12 days ago a rewrite was merged (https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl/pull/46), and now the static compiler can allocate and use the runtime (https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl/pull/58). I would still be weary of using it too much, but hopefully optimistic of its near future.
Post reply on HN