4 ms·

I think that article has been discussed to death and there's not much value in resurrecting it on every single post that mentions Julia. ultimately if you think

I think that article has been discussed to death and there's not much value in resurrecting it on every single post that mentions Julia. ultimately if you think the language might be a fit for your use case, I'd recommend trying it out and see how you like it first-hand.

lalalanananana 1mo ago
I strongly recommend listening to others experiences and not forwarding some conversion metric for the languages share holders. Maybe there's a lot of wisdom in smart people being vocal enough to say "yea no" about it. It's not like it's one person...
- postflopclarity 1mo ago
  I don't have any financial interest in Julia so I'm a bit confused about the reference to "share holders." I'm just a user. I'm sure there are lots of smart people who found that the language didn't suit their needs. there are also lots of smart people who love using Julia. both things can be true at the same time.
  - patagurbon 1mo ago
    There are no language share holders, and note that this account was created an hour ago just to post vague nonspecific gripes about Julia. There are some real issues in the ecosystem. Specifically there is a high proportion of “gradware” because much like other scientific languages there is a high proportion of graduate students doing their projects and then moving on. The language also encourages relying on packages which can break. But juliaup makes this easy enough to solve by downgrading.
    - lalalanananana 29d ago
      There are vc investments and other corporate sponsors which heavily dictate the language and it's ecosystem.
      - patagurbon 29d ago
        They dictate what their employees are paid to work on, there are no VC investments in The Julia Programming Language It’s true that MIT and a few other organizations have more influence than others simply because they employ more developers with time/scope to work on the language. Just like every programming language. But this becomes less true all the time. And most of the direction that is “paid for” is an unadulterated good: JuliaC ahead of time compilation has been requested for over a decade and has made enormous progress.
        lalalanananana 29d ago
        If you think this has no effect on core contributions or directionality for the language I have a crazy deal on a timeshare
        postflopclarity 29d ago
        I have submitted plenty of core contributions, none of which were directed or paid for by VC. the language contributions come from those sufficiently motivated to contribute. if you want to change the direction, you need to do some work.
        lalalanananana 29d ago
        I have core contributions to the language too. I think you misunderstood my sentiment. That's okay. In a few years you'll probably be where I am now. Setting a reminder for 2 years.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
retsibsi 1mo ago
I'm one of today's lucky 10,000, so I'm glad it was linked here (and would happily read a defence of the language from one of those previous discussions, too). When the criticisms relate to correctness bugs, I don't think 'try it out and see how you like it' is sufficient. I might love the syntax and the design and so on, but that doesn't tell me whether I'm going to run into serious bugs some time in the future.
- eigenspace 1mo ago
  Here's a somewhat recent discussion sparked by someone who was concerned having read the blogpost: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-stability-vs-rust-for-scientific-computing/ https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-stability-vs-rust-fo... It got a little long and meandered a bit, but I think there's some good, nuanced discussion there.
  - postflopclarity 1mo ago
    in particular, https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-stability-vs-rust-for-scientific-computing/137094/30 https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-stability-vs-rust-fo... is a very visceral example of how bugs like these arise everywhere (including python) and are in no way unique or even exaggerated in Julia.
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Intralexical 1mo ago
      That reads to me more like a long-winded example of a Julia user refusing to take correctness issues seriously, and instead using an LLM to self-soothe by deflecting onto other projects: > I think there’s also a mindset split, some people just like to have things more strict and avoid bugs by having their compiler proof everything, and others like more freedom and are fine with occasional mishaps. > Just for the fun of it, I put claude on Python, and it also found some eye watering correctness issues (to be fair, I haven’t taken the time to verify and judge them, but it seems like that’s a similar situation for the Julia version) I say "self-soothe" because if the intention were to better understand the correctness situation, presumably one would at least want to evaluate the output before declaring it "eye watering". And then even if the output was real, it would be better to report it to the affected Python projects instead of using it as an excuse to downplay problems in Julia. But most of the supposed "bugs" seem like totally fine/reasonable behaviors to me, often for clearly nonsensical inputs. Seriously, `np.array([1, 'two', 3.0])`? That's not a bug, the behavior is clearly documented on numpy.org, but really no matter what Python does with that, it's not comparable to issues like `prod([Int8(100), Int8(100)]) != prod((Int8(100), Int8(100)))` from that post about Julia. Which again the linked Discourse post downplays as "freedom and occasional mishaps".

lalalanananana 1mo ago

I strongly recommend listening to others experiences and not forwarding some conversion metric for the languages share holders. Maybe there's a lot of wisdom in smart people being vocal enough to say "yea no" about it. It's not like it's one person...

postflopclarity 1mo ago
I don't have any financial interest in Julia so I'm a bit confused about the reference to "share holders." I'm just a user. I'm sure there are lots of smart people who found that the language didn't suit their needs. there are also lots of smart people who love using Julia. both things can be true at the same time.
- patagurbon 1mo ago
  There are no language share holders, and note that this account was created an hour ago just to post vague nonspecific gripes about Julia. There are some real issues in the ecosystem. Specifically there is a high proportion of “gradware” because much like other scientific languages there is a high proportion of graduate students doing their projects and then moving on. The language also encourages relying on packages which can break. But juliaup makes this easy enough to solve by downgrading.
  - lalalanananana 29d ago
    There are vc investments and other corporate sponsors which heavily dictate the language and it's ecosystem.
    - patagurbon 29d ago
      They dictate what their employees are paid to work on, there are no VC investments in The Julia Programming Language It’s true that MIT and a few other organizations have more influence than others simply because they employ more developers with time/scope to work on the language. Just like every programming language. But this becomes less true all the time. And most of the direction that is “paid for” is an unadulterated good: JuliaC ahead of time compilation has been requested for over a decade and has made enormous progress.
      - lalalanananana 29d ago
        If you think this has no effect on core contributions or directionality for the language I have a crazy deal on a timeshare
        postflopclarity 29d ago
        I have submitted plenty of core contributions, none of which were directed or paid for by VC. the language contributions come from those sufficiently motivated to contribute. if you want to change the direction, you need to do some work.
        lalalanananana 29d ago
        I have core contributions to the language too. I think you misunderstood my sentiment. That's okay. In a few years you'll probably be where I am now. Setting a reminder for 2 years.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

retsibsi 1mo ago

I'm one of today's lucky 10,000, so I'm glad it was linked here (and would happily read a defence of the language from one of those previous discussions, too). When the criticisms relate to correctness bugs, I don't think 'try it out and see how you like it' is sufficient. I might love the syntax and the design and so on, but that doesn't tell me whether I'm going to run into serious bugs some time in the future.

eigenspace 1mo ago
Here's a somewhat recent discussion sparked by someone who was concerned having read the blogpost: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-stability-vs-rust-for-scientific-computing/ https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-stability-vs-rust-fo... It got a little long and meandered a bit, but I think there's some good, nuanced discussion there.
- postflopclarity 1mo ago
  in particular, https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-stability-vs-rust-for-scientific-computing/137094/30 https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-stability-vs-rust-fo... is a very visceral example of how bugs like these arise everywhere (including python) and are in no way unique or even exaggerated in Julia.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Intralexical 1mo ago
    That reads to me more like a long-winded example of a Julia user refusing to take correctness issues seriously, and instead using an LLM to self-soothe by deflecting onto other projects: > I think there’s also a mindset split, some people just like to have things more strict and avoid bugs by having their compiler proof everything, and others like more freedom and are fine with occasional mishaps. > Just for the fun of it, I put claude on Python, and it also found some eye watering correctness issues (to be fair, I haven’t taken the time to verify and judge them, but it seems like that’s a similar situation for the Julia version) I say "self-soothe" because if the intention were to better understand the correctness situation, presumably one would at least want to evaluate the output before declaring it "eye watering". And then even if the output was real, it would be better to report it to the affected Python projects instead of using it as an excuse to downplay problems in Julia. But most of the supposed "bugs" seem like totally fine/reasonable behaviors to me, often for clearly nonsensical inputs. Seriously, `np.array([1, 'two', 3.0])`? That's not a bug, the behavior is clearly documented on numpy.org, but really no matter what Python does with that, it's not comparable to issues like `prod([Int8(100), Int8(100)]) != prod((Int8(100), Int8(100)))` from that post about Julia. Which again the linked Discourse post downplays as "freedom and occasional mishaps".