3 ms·
Also a lot of people left early on because their concerns and use cases were dismissed as "holding it wrong". Thus what's left of Julia audience is just the one
by jampekka 3y ago
Also a lot of people left early on because their concerns and use cases were dismissed as "holding it wrong". Thus what's left of Julia audience is just the one they catered for.
The big selling point from the getgo was that Julia is general purpose. It's now over 10 years and it's still about as general purpose as MATLAB (although on a totally different level design-wise).
A big smell from the getgo was 1-based indexing. I appreciate that it's more familiar from some branches of math and physics (and MATLAB), and it's something I could live with, but more or less all general purpose languages index from zero. And there's a good reason for that. And that makes interoperability trickier.
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E...
- kelipso 3y agoLol sorry but if you read it, Dijkstra's argument for 0-based indexing is literally that it looks prettier... I really wonder if anyone who has posted that link ever read the actual argument and thought about it critically.
- jampekka 3y agoHe gives various reasons and practical examples for it.
- kelipso 3y agoOne can give analogous reasons (literally his main reason is it looks nicer lol) and practical examples that looks nicer in 1-based indexing too. It's a terrible argument that somehow got memed over way too long a time. Probably because no one needs to read the text, just post the link and you're done.
- bobbylarrybobby 3y agoJulia doesn't even have upper-exclusive ranges — `0:0` has length 1. (The length-0 sequence starting at 0 is, naturally, `0:-1`.) It fails on both counts!