3 ms·
Python also suffers from such problems. For example, here’s scipy’s issue tracker, filtered for bugs only: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues?q=is%3Aissue%2
by TimorousBestie 1y ago
Python also suffers from such problems. For example, here’s scipy’s issue tracker, filtered for bugs only:
https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20BUG https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3...
Scrolling through this list, it’s clear that many are “correctness issues.”
I do not link this to argue that scipy bugs are more serious or more frequent. I don’t think that kind of statistical comparison is meaningful.
However, I think a motivated reasoner could write a very similar blog post to the OP, but about $arb_python_lib instead of $arb_julia_lib.
I suppose my position is closer to “only Kahan, Boyd and Higham write correct numerical algorithms” (a hyperbole, but illustrative of the difficulty level).
- Grikbdl 1y agoExplicit errors are not correctness issues. Some numerical instability issues in certain algorithms in certain corner cases might be considered as such though. Regardless, overall, these are grossly of another complexity and seriousness than the base sum function being just wrong, or cultural issues among developers with not verifying inputs "for performance", or things of that nature. The scientific Python community has, in my experience, a much higher adherence to good standards than that.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago> Explicit errors are not correctness issues. Yes, of course. I am not conflating the two. > The scientific Python community has, in my experience, a much higher adherence to good standards than that. Not in my experience. Nor am I defending Julia.
- postflopclarity 1y agoI have found multiple "correctness bugs" of equal seriousness in Polars, and one of them is still open. that is not to throw shade at polars --- I love that package! but my point is that these things happen everywhere in software.