3 ms·
I (and I'm guessing some of the people involved with Julia) would argue that regardless of how good the numerical programming tools are, you'll never get the av
by jamesjporter 13y ago
I (and I'm guessing some of the people involved with Julia) would argue that regardless of how good the numerical programming tools are, you'll never get the average working scientist to use Haskell. That sounds like an interesting project though, I've become curious lately about the prospects for integrating high performance numerical computing with functional programming.
- tikhonj 13y agoYou certainly won't if you don't try! However, here at Jane Street at least, many of the traders are picking up and using OCaml. If traders can do, so can scientists. And if it works for OCaml, it'll probably work for Haskell. (Which, honestly, is quite a bit nicer overall.) Also, the general consensus seems to be that Haskell is easier to learn if you don't already have extensive imperative programming experience. So it's also a good fit for scientists in that sense. If all the needed libraries and tools existed--many do and more will, soon--and it was easy to get up and running, Haskell would be a perfect tool. Happily, it's moving in that direction, becoming simpler and more capable.