3 ms·
I know this might be unpopular on HN, but I find the whole "use Julia" comments every time something scientific code is discussed is becoming a bit old. I have
by cycomanic 5y ago
I know this might be unpopular on HN, but I find the whole "use Julia" comments every time something scientific code is discussed is becoming a bit old.
I have tried Julia but I found the promised "everything will be as easy to write as python but as fast as C" is often not true. There are quite a few pitfalls (e.g. don't use abstract data types), which one has to consider and code can start looking looking more like cython than python if one wants to optimise for speed. I also dislike some of the design decisions they made (in particular making multiply a matrix operation and using the '.' for broadcasting which is incredibly easy to overlook and one of the main sources of bugs in matlab code in my experience).
That said there are great things happening in the Julia ecosystem, just don't promote it as the be all of scientific computing all the time.
- spekcular 5y agoOh, if you check my comment history, you'll see me complaining a bit about Julia. I'm not saying it's perfect. But numba is so clunky and fickle that I think, just in terms of comparing the two, Julia is pretty clearly superior if you don't have a strong reason to use Python.