4 ms·
I actually, more and more think that python is an excellent language for science. The only issue is that, when it comes to numerical computation, there is only
by jbssm 11y ago
I actually, more and more think that python is an excellent language for science.
The only issue is that, when it comes to numerical computation, there is only "one right way to do it", which goes against Python philosophy. Meaning, either you do it while using vectorial operations mostly everywhere, or it's just too slow to work.
The only real advantage I see in Julia, is that it doesn't constrain you to a specific way to think about calculations. You can think about them in a vectorial way (which is not always possible) or you can just use an iterative approach. Both work fine.
This is what I mainly expect to get from Julia, but we must admit that the inertia behind python and it's excellent libraries for numerical computation, make it hard to change to Julia.
- r0muald 11y ago> The only issue is that, when it comes to numerical computation, there is only "one right way to do it", which goes against Python philosophy. But ... This is actually one of the pillars of Python: There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it <https://www.python.org/dev/PEPs/pep-0020/> https://www.python.org/dev/PEPs/pep-0020/>
- nsomaru 11y ago>...there is only "one right way to do it", which goes against Python philosophy There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.[0] [0] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/
- jbssm 11y agoLike I said. I was mixing Perl's and Python philosophy. It's strange I know. I work in Python almost every day and I've never touched Perl code. At least, I guess I'll have a silver lining at cracking my head in vectorizing everything from now on.