3 ms·

Yeah, the quality of the language is pretty incredible. Especially compared to Python, which has been a disaster for as long as I can remember. I think the eco

by smabie 6y ago

Yeah, the quality of the language is pretty incredible. Especially compared to Python, which has been a disaster for as long as I can remember. I think the ecosystem could be a bit better, but that's more of a personal opinion rather than a serious concern as, like you alluded to, you the interop story is insanely good.

adamnemecek 6y ago
The ecosystem is moving very rapidly though. What do you think is missing?
- smabie 6y ago
  Right now, the DataFrame package doesn't support row indices like Pandas does. Row indices are especially useful time series data, and there's another package called TimeSeries that support a dataframe-like type called a TimeArray that supports dates as row indices. TimeArray is like a DataFrame, but with a lot less features. You can't really do that much with them, and they only have limited support in an auxiliary package for resampling. It would be nice if a new DataFrame library could be created that was inspired by Pandas. In general, I think Julia suffers from the problem of too many small packages. For example, there's 3 libraries I have to use for time series: TimeSeries.jl, TimeSeries Resample.jl,and TimeSeriesIO.jl. None of the libraries are particularly large and should all be merged into one package. Part of the reason for the dirth of small packages is because, unlike Python, Julia's strong support for function polymorphism allows for seamless extension of existing functionality with new packages. Unfortunately, I think this has created a cultural problem in which new packages are created that only slightly modify existing functionality.
  - longemen3000 6y ago
    One of the discussions on Juliacon was exactly this! How to index various things. This was one of the documents produced during the discussion : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1imBX3k0EEejauWVyXONZDRj8LTr0PeLOJNGEgo6ow1g/edit?usp=drivesdk https://docs.google.com/document/d/1imBX3k0EEejauWVyXONZDRj8...
  - xiaodai 6y ago
    Please don't be "inspired" by pandas.
    - smabie 6y ago
      No, you're right. Pandas totally sucks. But the one good thing it got right is support for row/multi-index.
caleb-allen 6y ago
I think Python is less a disaster than it is a tool being used for something it was not designed to do. It's a pretty good scripting language, and it's a "good enough" interface that implementers of C packages can expose powerful features, and that can only go so far. User's can't easily compose the powerful features that library designers didn't intent. Julia, on the other hand, was designed for the explicit purpose of high-performance scientific computing, with a syntax informed by the tools people already knew (python, MATLAB). It's no wonder it's so much easier to use.

by smabie 6y ago

adamnemecek 6y ago

The ecosystem is moving very rapidly though. What do you think is missing?

smabie 6y ago
Right now, the DataFrame package doesn't support row indices like Pandas does. Row indices are especially useful time series data, and there's another package called TimeSeries that support a dataframe-like type called a TimeArray that supports dates as row indices. TimeArray is like a DataFrame, but with a lot less features. You can't really do that much with them, and they only have limited support in an auxiliary package for resampling. It would be nice if a new DataFrame library could be created that was inspired by Pandas. In general, I think Julia suffers from the problem of too many small packages. For example, there's 3 libraries I have to use for time series: TimeSeries.jl, TimeSeries Resample.jl,and TimeSeriesIO.jl. None of the libraries are particularly large and should all be merged into one package. Part of the reason for the dirth of small packages is because, unlike Python, Julia's strong support for function polymorphism allows for seamless extension of existing functionality with new packages. Unfortunately, I think this has created a cultural problem in which new packages are created that only slightly modify existing functionality.
- longemen3000 6y ago
  One of the discussions on Juliacon was exactly this! How to index various things. This was one of the documents produced during the discussion : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1imBX3k0EEejauWVyXONZDRj8LTr0PeLOJNGEgo6ow1g/edit?usp=drivesdk https://docs.google.com/document/d/1imBX3k0EEejauWVyXONZDRj8...
- xiaodai 6y ago
  Please don't be "inspired" by pandas.
  - smabie 6y ago
    No, you're right. Pandas totally sucks. But the one good thing it got right is support for row/multi-index.

caleb-allen 6y ago

I think Python is less a disaster than it is a tool being used for something it was not designed to do. It's a pretty good scripting language, and it's a "good enough" interface that implementers of C packages can expose powerful features, and that can only go so far. User's can't easily compose the powerful features that library designers didn't intent. Julia, on the other hand, was designed for the explicit purpose of high-performance scientific computing, with a syntax informed by the tools people already knew (python, MATLAB). It's no wonder it's so much easier to use.