3 ms·

Completely agree with 4 and 5. I use Julia regularly and while it is great for scripts and proof of concepts of mathematical stuff it might be too complicated t

Completely agree with 4 and 5. I use Julia regularly and while it is great for scripts and proof of concepts of mathematical stuff it might be too complicated to implement in Python or in C++ once one starts to grow an application it is tremendously frustrating. I have clear and satisfying workflows in C (vim + make + gdb + valgrind) and Python (vim/vs code, pdb) but I cannot say that debugging and tracing errors is a comfortable experience in Julia. Essential development tools are relegated to third-party libraries (e.g. Revise.jl and Debugger.jl) and are often clunky or responsiveness is limited (e.g. Revise.jl won't work when you change a struct) I believe the problem is that, because of Julia is marketed towards scientific computing and HPC, it draws mostly from an academic user base which is not that interested in software development.

huijzer 5y ago
> I believe the problem is that, because of Julia is marketed towards scientific computing and HPC, it draws mostly from an academic user base which is not that interested in software development. Although you have a point regarding Revise and Debugger, the last paragraph makes no sense at all. As a counterexample, Haskell drew mostly from an academic user base and many Haskell idioms have ended up in other real world *production* languages like Python (e.g. map, filter, reduce).
- chestertn 5y ago
  > It does not make sense at all. Please, I am open to see why you think so. > As a counterexample, Haskell drew mostly from an academic user base May I infer from this statement that you agree with me that Julia draws mostly from an academic user base? In that case, I do not see how your counterexample invalidates what I said. Perhaps some constructs from Julia end up in "real world production languages" but what I said is that the development experience in Julia is subpar and it shows when one is trying to develop larger codebases where software engineering practices become more important.

huijzer 5y ago

> I believe the problem is that, because of Julia is marketed towards scientific computing and HPC, it draws mostly from an academic user base which is not that interested in software development. Although you have a point regarding Revise and Debugger, the last paragraph makes no sense at all. As a counterexample, Haskell drew mostly from an academic user base and many Haskell idioms have ended up in other real world *production* languages like Python (e.g. map, filter, reduce).

chestertn 5y ago
> It does not make sense at all. Please, I am open to see why you think so. > As a counterexample, Haskell drew mostly from an academic user base May I infer from this statement that you agree with me that Julia draws mostly from an academic user base? In that case, I do not see how your counterexample invalidates what I said. Perhaps some constructs from Julia end up in "real world production languages" but what I said is that the development experience in Julia is subpar and it shows when one is trying to develop larger codebases where software engineering practices become more important.