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

Julia 1.9

julialang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 216 posts

Re: Julia 1.9

#11

Post by eigenspace »

aborsy wrote: post #6

Matlab users should switch to Julia. It’s a real programming language, and better in many ways. I provide the option of Julia in my tutorials. Students are lazy, and don’t want to explore something new. Most of them stick with matlab. What prevents matlab users from switching? The syntax is similar.

People get settled in their toolsets. Besides, Julia does have a lot of syntax similarities to Matlab, but that doesnt mean that switching is straightforward.

It’s still a completely different language with it’s own paradigms, semantics, ecosystem, etc.

Re: Julia 1.9

#12

Post by chaxor »

aborsy wrote: post #6

Matlab users should switch to Julia. It’s a real programming language, and better in many ways. I provide the option of Julia in my tutorials. Students are lazy, and don’t want to explore something new. Most of them stick with matlab. What prevents matlab users from switching? The syntax is similar.

There should be a very simple way to translate Matlab to Julia that anyone can use easily. Yeah, GPT-4 "could* do that - but I don't think very many people would ever do that. Why? Because often Matlab code is private and the owners can't give their code over to some other person.

So some other method e.g. Galpaca distilled or Llama-based distil by step for Matlab->Julia translation model should be popularized.

Especially with the distill step by step you could get something that runs quite efficiently on a laptop.

Re: Julia 1.9

#13

Post by eigenspace »

huijzer wrote: post #7

I used to have a reasonably simple notebook for a paper which took about 35 minutes to compile on an old university-provided CPU; even when opening it for the second time. Therefore, I‘m really excited for the improvements in code caching! Thanks to Tim Holy, Jameson Nash, Valentin Churavy, and others for your work

> Reasonably simple

> 35 minutes to compile

What kind of CPU are we talking about here!?

Re: Julia 1.9

#14

Post by MagnumOpus »

aborsy wrote: post #6

Matlab users should switch to Julia. It’s a real programming language, and better in many ways. I provide the option of Julia in my tutorials. Students are lazy, and don’t want to explore something new. Most of them stick with matlab. What prevents matlab users from switching? The syntax is similar.

What prevents it is the libraries. Just like Python.

Julia as a compiled language is faster and more distributable than either, but there is a chicken-egg problem about the ecosystem. MathWorks' provided libraries for Matlab are excellent, amazingly documented and massively supported. Python libraries are just hugely numerous in any domain you can imagine...

Re: Julia 1.9

#15

Post by arijun »

Does anyone know what the units are for TTL and TTFX? I can’t tell how significant those results are. Label your graphs, people!

Re: Julia 1.9

#16

Post by datadeft »

arijun wrote: post #15

Does anyone know what the units are for TTL and TTFX? I can’t tell how significant those results are. Label your graphs, people!

I guess it is milliseconds based on the names and the results later in the article.

- time-to-first-execution (TTFX)

- time-to-load (TTL)

Re: Julia 1.9

#17

Post by wiz21c »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #3
kettleballroll wrote: post #2

[flagged]

For me, the issue is that there's too much magic happening, e.g. with macros, but finding or solving the issues seems needlessly convoluted. Haskell, Rust, Python, or even C++ feel a lot less magic, and more reasonable despite all being quite different.

I like rust a lot but when you get into errors because some deeply generic trait can't be matched, believe me, the compiler's messages are cryptic :-)

Re: Julia 1.9

#18

Post by amval »

331c8c71 wrote: post #8
thelastbender12 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this comment necessary on every Julia-related post? I don't even use Julia outside tutorials but this adds no value beyond things that have already been said N number of times. Every programming language doesn't need to become _the_ language to do something. They are experiments in how to best express what you want to compute. Even if Julia never takes off, they explore multiple directions other languages migh…

> Why is this comment necessary on every Julia-related post? I think it's just a reaction to constantly seeing Julia being oversold and overmarketed in the geekosphere.

Is it really oversold? Anytime there are Julia threads is much more common to find a reactionary take like the one that started this thread or some dismissal based on a superficial syntax complaint.

There _are_ legitimate complaints about the language (or more exactly, its runtime). Julia 1.9 is a significant milestone on addressing those.

Maybe Julia will not suceed on overtaking anything, but that is not because of a lack of merit.

Re: Julia 1.9

#19

Post by samuell »

kettleballroll wrote: post #2

[flagged]

Not only for mathematicians. I've heard from reliable sources that Julia is chewing into the life sciences field(s).

There was recently a tutorial on Julia for biologists in Nature Methods:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-023-01832-z

That said, I imagine things might get interesting again if/when Modular open sources their Mojo/"Python" compiler.

Re: Julia 1.9

#20

Post by zorked »

kettleballroll wrote: post #2

[flagged]

Every Julia post: oh no, one-based indexing.

I'm old enough to remember when every Python came with the mandatory "oh no, significant whitespace" post. Now it's just the most mainstream language.

Post reply on HN