3 ms·
I'm going to humbly suggest that trying to own the whole stack is a mistake. Bioinformatics requires a varied toolkit to perform any single analysis. Each step
by mbreese 7y ago
I'm going to humbly suggest that trying to own the whole stack is a mistake. Bioinformatics requires a varied toolkit to perform any single analysis. Each step along the way has a different set of challenges and requirements. Expecting to be able to use one toolset or language for each step, I think is a mistake.
You'd never want to write a production alignment algorithm in Python (not performant enough), just as much as you don't want to create a visualization in C (way to low-level). Different problems... different optimizations... different strengths.
Trying to be all things to all people is a good way to be mediocre at all of them.
In certain circumstances, I think there is value in a variant of Python that is statically typed. However, even in that case, restricting the use-cases to bioinformatics makes is accessible to only a small subset of people who might benefit from the speed increases.
- dawkot 7y ago"Trying to be all things to all people is a good way to be mediocre at all of them." What prevents a language from providing high-level features on top of low-level ones? It's a false dichotomy.
- nsstring96 7y agoYou get C++... take that as you will.
- dawkot 7y agoAll a high-level language needs to also be low-level is a minimal runtime and ability to manually manage memory.
- ablekh 7y agoThis aspect (variability of requirements spectrum) is exactly why Julia language seems to be extremely attractive in that it represents an excellent and unique solution to the "two-language problem". The only issue that I'm seeing right now is a relative immaturity of the Julia ecosystem (tooling, talent, etc.), though progress in this regard is significant.