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

271–280 of 446 posts

Re: Julia 1.0

#271

Post by tavert »

kwertzzz wrote: post #267
kgwgk wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A binary package will be available in CRAN for a given platform/version only if it works (it passes all the tests). It seems that Julia lets you install a non-working package without any warning (you will probably get errors when you run it, but I guess it may also fail silently which is worse).

This is indeed a very good idea. In Julia, the package author defines the range of supported Julia version. Most package actually just say "version 0.6 or later". The JuliaDB package was just been updated preventing the installation on Julia 0.7 or 1.0: https://github.com/JuliaComputing/JuliaDB.jl/commit/8bf3057d... A automatic check as in R would indeed a better choice.

That will only prevent installation of master of the package or the immediate next few versions on 0.7. The old package versions without a julia upper bound remain available so users on 0.7 or 1.0 will just be held back to old versions of JuliaDB until a new release without an upper bound gets made.

Re: Julia 1.0

#272

Post by oxinabox »

AlexCoventry wrote: post #149
29galoseats wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar reaction about this being a little premature. On the other hand, I'm wondering if this will help a little with the dependency hell that's caused me to drift away from Julia over the last year or so. At first I was fairly excited about Julia, and greatly preferred it over R or Python for numerical work, library resources aside. It was fast and I liked the language design itself. Over the last year or t…

That's really disappointing to hear. Dependency hell is what drove me away in 2016. I hope it clears up eventually.

It is a lot lot better than it was in 2016. The new package manager helps a lot. I mean separate environments per project, and upper-bounding package dependencies by default, is just going to avoid a lot of head-aches.

But more generally things are maturing.

And 1.0 will help too, since things won't be chasing a moving target.

If your not in any hurry, I'ld give it 6 months, of people who don't mind a bit of packages breaking (e.g. people like me) using it.

That will be plenty of time for everything to shake out. More than you might expect has actually already been shaken out in the last few weeks in the package ecosystem. Hitting 1.0 should give some package maintainers the drive to get it done.

Re: Julia 1.0

#273

Post by DNF2 »

dangom wrote: post #214
ChrisRackauckas wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what 0-based indexing looks like in data analysis: >In order to read a csv in that doesn't have a header and for only certain columns you need to pass params header=None and usecols=[3,6] for the 4th and 7th columns: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29287224/pandas-read-in-... Just reading that hurts me.

This is very much a non-argument. Call the columns the 4th and 7th is as arbitrary as calling them the 3rd and the 6th. Again, 0-based indexing exists to fit a purpose: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EW... In my opinion, reading `a = b[1:n-1]` hurts much more than reading `a = b[:n]`.

The equivalent of `a = b[:n]` is `a = b[1:n]`. And I don't think you can get around admitting that there is a fundamental ambiguity in the spoken statement "Take a look at the fourth column!" in a zero-based index system. You always need a follow-up question to clarify whether you mean "everyday informal speech fourth" or "zero-index fourth."

Re: Julia 1.0

#275

Post by oxinabox »

kleff wrote: post #95
renox wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

because the whole Option Foo stuff that Visual Basic had, is a hideous global state thing that makes it hard to reason about code without checking for what it's options were set to.

Programming languages should not be configurable in that kind of way.

Re: Julia 1.0

#276

Post by currymj »

LittlePeter wrote: post #112
ChrisRackauckas wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was literally released today. Of course the packages don't work yet...

That makes sense. Maybe I was used to R (CRAN) where uploaded packages are actually tested against the version they declare to support.

CRAN has extremely strong requirements around testing, compatibility, documentation, all aggressively enforced by the maintainers of the repository.

The Julia package ecosystem is much more anarchic, like npm. You basically just have to have a public git repository with certain files in place, and a cursory review from the managers of the package metadata.

There are tradeoffs. I'm honestly not sure which one is the right way. I really appreciate how much I can trust that a CRAN package works, but there's a reason so many R devs are using devtools to do an end-run around it.

Re: Julia 1.0

#277

Post by ur-whale »

orhmeh09 wrote: post #254
ur-whale wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again assuming: that may be true in the place where you were educated.

If you look at ranks for worldwide sporting events , you’ll note that approximately none of them indicates first (zeroth ?) place with a 0. Can you give an example of a place where education at early childhood level is carried out as you claim ?

>ranks for worldwide sporting events

You're right ... sporting events ... how could I have not included that very scholarly pursuit of engineers, scientists and programmers in my analysis.

I'm not trying to claim that 0-based is better than 1-based. I'm just trying to point out that outside of the fairly limited crowd who spend their workday in things like Matlab and R, the vast majority of coders in the world in 2018 are working in 0-based indices languages.

If Julia is a worthy language which aims to attract a crowd beyond the niche R/Matlab folks, then choosing 1-based indices is poor tactics.

Re: Julia 1.0

#278

Post by boardgoat »

For R users who have started using Julia how's the datascience stack compare to tidyverse? The advertised speed of Julia seems great so I want to ask someone else who's made the switch how's life on the other side?

Re: Julia 1.0

#280

Post by andrestan »

boardgoat wrote: post #278

For R users who have started using Julia how's the datascience stack compare to tidyverse? The advertised speed of Julia seems great so I want to ask someone else who's made the switch how's life on the other side?

I think if you compare R's tidyverse to Julia, you aren't at all in Julia's wheelhouse. Julia's value comes from algorithm development primarily, not from interacting with data.frame type objects. If you really want to speed up that, use data.table in R. It'll provide you with the fastest data.frame implementation around.
Post reply on HN