3 ms·
> Julia is too "trendy" in certain circles (finance bros) for a lot of scientific computing types to take it seriously and invest a lot of time into it. Isn’t
by avgcorrection 4y ago
> Julia is too "trendy" in certain circles (finance bros) for a lot of scientific computing types to take it seriously and invest a lot of time into it.
Isn’t that either ironic or hypocritical? Rejecting something out of hand because too many people like it is just as superficial as embracing something on account of many people liking it.
Either try it and reject it, or ignore it. But Too Trendy is not a good reason.
- Moissanite 4y agoNot particularly my opinion, just an observation - when I've brought it up with physicist friends, they only knew the language as something Quants play with. Then again, physicists are weird - they seem to reach for C++ more often than Fortran.
- leephillips 4y agoMay I introduce a counterexample? I worked for 21 years as a computational physicist for the DoD. I never saw or heard about anyone using a C++ program. Everything was in Fortran, except for a special-purpose C dialect that we used for programming the Connection Machine. I understand that C++ is used in analysis of high energy physics experiments, though (although I’ve also heard that it‘s being phased out). I know of some large-scale physics simulations that are using Julia, and it’s widely considered the language to use for new projects. It’s what I use now for my physics hobby projects. I’d never heard about its finance-bro associations. And if I had, why would I give a crap?
- moelf 4y agowe're actively trying to move more end-users of high energy physics (HEP) into Julia https://github.com/JuliaHEP/ https://github.com/JuliaHEP/
- StefanKarpinski 4y agoAh, but you see, Julia is both too popular and not popular enough! It's too popular with the wrong people (bad unserious people) and not popular enough with the right people (good serious people).