3 ms·
For me it is too much fun. I love that I can use most of the standard library without thinking / looking at the documentation, and not needing to wait for compi
by xiphias2 8y ago
For me it is too much fun. I love that I can use most of the standard library without thinking / looking at the documentation, and not needing to wait for compilation.
But at the same time I hate that I love a language that performs so bad compared to being closer to the metal.
- rakoo 8y agoHave you looked at crystal (https://crystal-lang.org/ https://crystal-lang.org/) ? Very ruby-like, but has additional safeties and compiles to native.
- xiphias2 8y agoIt looks fun, but as I'm doing financial modelling right now, Julia may be a better fit for me, as it has very nice libraries as well.
- amalawi 8y agoYou may want to check APL family as a possible option for prototyping at least.
- xiphias2 8y agoAPL itself looks really really bad language with bad documentation, no real libraries, non-existent type system, bad function names, and I don't see any GPU programming support in it. In the family Matlab is still the best (It can do Monte Carlo simulation on the GPU, and has a great library for different distributions), but it's still much slower language than Julia generally.
- faitswulff 8y agoWhat use cases do you have that are more performant in other languages?
- xiphias2 8y agoRight now I'm working on financial time series modelling. I can't use numerical arrays because the model is not parallelizable. Also R / Mathematica are not good for these kind of stuff. I'm thinking of trying out Julia, as it's dynamic but still has a lot of interesting libraries, but for now I just decided with working with small data, so actually I don't have performance problems.