5 ms·

A rule of thumb is that 90% of unhappy customers don't complain. So it's likely that a lot of people are experiencing these same problems, but not voicing them.

A rule of thumb is that 90% of unhappy customers don't complain. So it's likely that a lot of people are experiencing these same problems, but not voicing them. "Thank you" seems to be missing from a lot of comments. A good response might entail: what is the core team is currently prioritizing, why, and how will this feedback help guide those efforts? Also, take heed of the number of occurrences of the following statement, which I support: > "community is hostile to feedback"

oscardssmith 5y ago
Short list of current priorities (in no particular order) Making it easier to interface with the compiler (this is step 1 on better ability to static compile/debug) Better garbage collection More performance Reducing the memory footprint of small strings Lowering the overhead of multithreading It's worth noting that Julia doesn't really have a core team. A lot of the development is done by a pretty large community of developers without any central management.
- amkkma 5y ago
  They've been pretty mum on the type system stuff though. Do you have any insight there?
  - oscardssmith 5y ago
    The short answer is that changing the type system to allow multiple inheritance (traits) involves solving some really hard and open-ended problems (eg method specificity). Solving this is probably breaking, and requires a ton of work on a problem that might not even be solvable. If I had to guess it will be solved by the language that replaces Julia in 20 years.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - amkkma 5y ago
      Thanks
- Kalanos 5y ago
  Thanks for the info. What worries me is that you can replace 'Julia' with 'Scala' in that sentence and a data scientist wouldn't know the difference. It's already fast. If Julia wants to win in data science then they need to poach users away from other languages.
  - BadInformatics 5y ago
    As much as many of us would like it to be, the kind of data science work you see Scala used for is a pretty small part of what Julia is used for. I think a big part of that is because DS rarely involves writing fast numeric kernels or hot inner loops, i.e. user code that needs to do numeric stuff quickly. This is in large part because very large organizations have poured untold millions into libraries that already handle this (e.g Spark). In domains where this has not happened or that have more bespoke requirements (e.g. modelling and simulation), something like Julia is far more compelling. That's not to say it's not viable, but unless more practitioners start feeling stuck in a rut [1] I don't see the mindshare changing dramatically. [1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3317550.3321441 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3317550.3321441
mccoyb 5y ago
Except an MIT licensed language and compiler implementation isn't a business. It's open source software. And despite the fact that other users have referenced the recent valuation of Julia Computing, that doesn't change the fact that Julia is open source software. Of all the complaints I've seen in all the Julia posts in HN -- how many complainers want to pick up the compiler and help fix it? Reminds me of a Linus Torvalds quote. Upset at compile-time latency, REPL-based workflows, lack of static compilation, etc? -- please come join us and make it better. In fact, I guarantee that working in the guts of a system like this will endow you with an incredible set of skills -- and it is possible with Julia to do serious work with the compiler, and learn things that will make your head spin (abstractly). Yes, we want the best language and compiler possible -- yes, there are issues right now. Yes, there are plans to fix these issues. But ... there are not enough talented, smart people working on this stuff. And there is enough low hanging fruit that a bit of effort can have a huge impact on the community.
- Kalanos 5y ago
  Does this 'MIT licensed language and compiler implementation' face competition? Does it receive and act upon customer feedback? Try replacing the word 'customer' with either 'user' or 'developer.' A programming language is a product that is packaged, promoted, and distributed by means of open source to a target market of users for a price of $0. All the same rules apply whether we like it or not.

oscardssmith 5y ago

Short list of current priorities (in no particular order) Making it easier to interface with the compiler (this is step 1 on better ability to static compile/debug) Better garbage collection More performance Reducing the memory footprint of small strings Lowering the overhead of multithreading It's worth noting that Julia doesn't really have a core team. A lot of the development is done by a pretty large community of developers without any central management.

amkkma 5y ago
They've been pretty mum on the type system stuff though. Do you have any insight there?
- oscardssmith 5y ago
  The short answer is that changing the type system to allow multiple inheritance (traits) involves solving some really hard and open-ended problems (eg method specificity). Solving this is probably breaking, and requires a ton of work on a problem that might not even be solvable. If I had to guess it will be solved by the language that replaces Julia in 20 years.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - amkkma 5y ago
    Thanks
Kalanos 5y ago
Thanks for the info. What worries me is that you can replace 'Julia' with 'Scala' in that sentence and a data scientist wouldn't know the difference. It's already fast. If Julia wants to win in data science then they need to poach users away from other languages.
- BadInformatics 5y ago
  As much as many of us would like it to be, the kind of data science work you see Scala used for is a pretty small part of what Julia is used for. I think a big part of that is because DS rarely involves writing fast numeric kernels or hot inner loops, i.e. user code that needs to do numeric stuff quickly. This is in large part because very large organizations have poured untold millions into libraries that already handle this (e.g Spark). In domains where this has not happened or that have more bespoke requirements (e.g. modelling and simulation), something like Julia is far more compelling. That's not to say it's not viable, but unless more practitioners start feeling stuck in a rut [1] I don't see the mindshare changing dramatically. [1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3317550.3321441 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3317550.3321441

mccoyb 5y ago

Except an MIT licensed language and compiler implementation isn't a business. It's open source software. And despite the fact that other users have referenced the recent valuation of Julia Computing, that doesn't change the fact that Julia is open source software. Of all the complaints I've seen in all the Julia posts in HN -- how many complainers want to pick up the compiler and help fix it? Reminds me of a Linus Torvalds quote. Upset at compile-time latency, REPL-based workflows, lack of static compilation, etc? -- please come join us and make it better. In fact, I guarantee that working in the guts of a system like this will endow you with an incredible set of skills -- and it is possible with Julia to do serious work with the compiler, and learn things that will make your head spin (abstractly). Yes, we want the best language and compiler possible -- yes, there are issues right now. Yes, there are plans to fix these issues. But ... there are not enough talented, smart people working on this stuff. And there is enough low hanging fruit that a bit of effort can have a huge impact on the community.

Kalanos 5y ago
Does this 'MIT licensed language and compiler implementation' face competition? Does it receive and act upon customer feedback? Try replacing the word 'customer' with either 'user' or 'developer.' A programming language is a product that is packaged, promoted, and distributed by means of open source to a target market of users for a price of $0. All the same rules apply whether we like it or not.