4 ms·
Julia stands definitely on firm foundations, has a solid design and is strongly-typed too.
by junke 11y ago
Julia stands definitely on firm foundations, has a solid design and is strongly-typed too.
- 9981721212 11y agoStrongly typed and dynamically typed, which means that you can get runtime errors. Also, the "type system" with "dependent types" is really just equivalent to an ML datatype that's dynamically type checked. I'm a bit mystified with respect to what passes as research in the field of type systems for dynamic languages.
- lmm 11y agoThen why's it positioned as a numerical/datascience language rather than a general-purpose language?
- junke 11y agoDo you see a contradiction between having a good design and having a specific purpose?
- lmm 11y agoYes. I think good programming language design is necessarily general, and the best way to achieve that is with a language that's been validated in widely varied domains. Certainly my experience is that specialized languages are consistently worse than general-purpose ones.
- junke 11y agoJulia is general-purpose, but there is a deliberate orientation towards scientific computing. That's a partly non-technical choice about what is going to be optimized in priority. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17433435/what-makes-julia-unsuitable-for-general-purpose-programming/17434967#17434967 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17433435/what-makes-juli...