3 ms·
"I think it's unfortunate that the Julia creators didn't realize this, and have gone back to imperative semantics for their collections." I'm a fan of immutabl
by fsloth 9y ago
"I think it's unfortunate that the Julia creators didn't realize this, and have gone back to imperative semantics for their collections."
I'm a fan of immutable containers. Makes all sorts of things just easier. But I was under the impression there is no known way to implement efficient graph algorithms using immutable containers - with performance on par with a mutable implementation that is.
This alone is a sufficient reason not to default on immutable for a language with performance as one of the key requirements, IMO.
The research I did was from a few years back and things might have changed. I'd like to know if this is the case :)
- usgroup 9y agoI disagree since it's suppose to be a scientific language. IMO it should aim to be a DSL to that effect; ergonomic for the purpose of analysing and calculating. Kind of like a declarative language; the hard stuff should be left to the compiler where it's possible. Again, I think Clojure does a good job at this.
- fsloth 9y ago"Kind of like a declarative language; the hard stuff should be left to the compiler where it's possible. " That's the holy grail of numerics. I don't think that's feasible if they want to cater to researchers who need to hand tune their algorithms. We are quite far off from "do what I mean" semantics. Clojure's approach works for a grammar of very limited set of very well understood container operations. If you want symbolic computations use e.g. Mathematica, Macsyma, etc.