4 ms·
fyi: the author of that post is a current Julia user and intended the post as counterpoint to their normally enthusiastic endorsements. so while it is a good in
by affinepplan 3y ago
fyi: the author of that post is a current Julia user and intended the post as counterpoint to their normally enthusiastic endorsements. so while it is a good intro to some of the shortfalls of the language, I'm not sure the author would agree that Julia has "failed" due to these details
- jampekka 3y agoYes, but it's a good list of the major problems, and laudable for a self-professed "stan" to be upfront about them. It's my assesment that the problems listed in there are a cause why Julia will not take off and we're largely stuck with Python for the foreseeable future.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y agoIt is worth noting that the first of the reasons presented is significantly improved in Julia 1.9 and 1.10 (released ~8 months and ~1 month ago). The time for `using BioSequences, FASTX` on 1.10 is down to 0.14 seconds on my computer (from 0.62 seconds on 1.8 when the blog post was published).
- jampekka 3y agoTTFX is indeed getting a lot better. But e.g. "using DynamicalSystems" is still over 5 seconds. There is something big going on in caching the binaries, so there's a chance the TTFX will get workable.