4 ms·
> Lack of support for OOP. Please. No. Languages that try to do everything are crap. If you want to do something OOP, why don't you grab a language built for i
by AllegedAlec 8y ago
> Lack of support for OOP.
Please. No. Languages that try to do everything are crap. If you want to do something OOP, why don't you grab a language built for it?
- RivieraKid 8y agoI do. Many languages have excellent support for both OOP and FP. I think Swift is currently the best-designed general-purpose language and wish that it would improve in areas where Julia is better, e.g. standard library and available packages or REPL.
- AllegedAlec 8y agoI'd much rather whave a couple of language that specialize in their own paradigm rather than a single one which tries to do everything, to be honest.
- skohan 8y agoWhat's convenient about Swift as a language which "tries to do everything" is that you can mix and match. Sometimes it's convenient to use different programming paradigms for different components.
- AllegedAlec 8y agoIt also makes the code a pain to read and maintain.
- skohan 8y agoDifference of opinion. Swift is the most self-documenting language I have worked with between the named function parameters and the power of the type system.
- skohan 8y agoSwift does have a REPL.
- RivieraKid 8y agoYeah, but Julia's REPL is better in several ways.
- ModernMech 8y agoWhich ways?
- RivieraKid 8y agoFaster startup, better printing of values, integrated package manager, integrated help system, filesystem autocompletion, etc.
- orbifold 8y agoSwift actually has faster startup, a better package manager by far, better custom printing support. It also has playground and jupyther notebook integration. Swift is a solid piece of engineering, Julia is a hacky toy.
- RivieraKid 8y agoI'm talking about the REPL. I've tested all points I mentioned before submitting the comment.