4 ms·

This seems a little hasty on the part of the Julia guys. This is a promising language and I for one was looking closely for alternatives to Python. Yet Julia ha

This seems a little hasty on the part of the Julia guys. This is a promising language and I for one was looking closely for alternatives to Python. Yet Julia hasn't built enough traction yet, and here we are with a commercial arm run by all the founders, already. There is of course nothing wrong with wishing to monetize one's hard work, but I fear that the OSS community will now shun Julia because they'll be afraid that new features might be added only to some commercial version in the future, and/or, the incentives of the founders will be to make it hard not to pay for consulting. We've seen this before ("Open"gamma, I'm looking at you). If this were some cloud service with an "enterprise" version I'd be less worried, but when we're talking about breaking into scientific computing against a very entrenched Python/Numpy, and rising candidate Lua, not to mention R, you're going to need as much goodwill as possible from the scientific and academic communities who are so crucial to growing an ecosystem, and many of these are hostile to commerce. Perhaps the siren song of Matlab's high pricing still sings for Edelman.

pen2l 11y ago
I don't know about Matlab... I heard they had a big layoff just recently. So I suspect they might shake things up and make Matlab cheaper. That said, I recently went from Python to Matlab for the work that I do, I wish I had done it sooner. Documentation is much better, support is nice, and folks in my lab are good at Matlab so I can get quick good help. Bottom line is I get stuff done with Matlab much faster and with better results. YMMV.
- vegabook 11y ago
  That is a decent counterpoint to my original comment I think. I work with clients who are very happy and very productive with Matlab, precisely for the reason you cite: fantastic docs and support. I just cannot justify the huge spend on every new module, nor is Matlab an option if you want to distribute software widely. Also my sense is that the somewhat more chaotic world of Numpy is more innovative, if less stable and user friendly. But I definitely think there is a strong case for high cashflow when it comes to supporting a technology. Perhaps this might be good for Julia if (and only if) they can keep the OSS people motivated and onside.
  - kejaed 11y ago
    I'm curious why you consider Matlab not an option to distribute software widely? They have the Matlab Compiler that allows you produce executables that work with the freely downloadable Matlab Compiler Runtime. I know of at least one software product, Imatest, that is produced and distributed this way. http://www.mathworks.com/products/compiler/ http://www.mathworks.com/products/compiler/ http://www.imatest.com http://www.imatest.com
    - vegabook 11y ago
      I am given to understand that some functionality is not compilable or redistributable. I work in a fairly specialized field (fixed income term structure optimization) and this page is not encouraging (see "cannot be compiled" column): http://uk.mathworks.com/products/compiler/supported/compiler_support.html http://uk.mathworks.com/products/compiler/supported/compiler... Also, finance is a field ripe for disruption, and if you're going to disrupt, you probably don't want to be doing it by relying on an expensive piece of highly proprietary technology, is my view.
      - kejaed 11y ago
        Ah yes, great point. I suppose that ties into the whole trade off one has in using Matlab in the first place: locking in to a proprietary commerical product to spend more time on problem-space work and less on managing memory and I/O etc. You get to pay up front to get working on your problem more quickly, and you pay again later on with a potential lack of flexibility. I have been burned by such a lock in before in a personal project where the commerical make an app easily SDK was discontinued and left in the dust with all the developers left holding their collective unupdateabale apps in their hands.
    - cschmidt 11y ago
      They have carefully left out certain key capabilities in the Matlab compiler, that renders it not very useful for some applications. So it is cool, but check the list of compilable functions.

pen2l 11y ago

I don't know about Matlab... I heard they had a big layoff just recently. So I suspect they might shake things up and make Matlab cheaper. That said, I recently went from Python to Matlab for the work that I do, I wish I had done it sooner. Documentation is much better, support is nice, and folks in my lab are good at Matlab so I can get quick good help. Bottom line is I get stuff done with Matlab much faster and with better results. YMMV.

vegabook 11y ago
That is a decent counterpoint to my original comment I think. I work with clients who are very happy and very productive with Matlab, precisely for the reason you cite: fantastic docs and support. I just cannot justify the huge spend on every new module, nor is Matlab an option if you want to distribute software widely. Also my sense is that the somewhat more chaotic world of Numpy is more innovative, if less stable and user friendly. But I definitely think there is a strong case for high cashflow when it comes to supporting a technology. Perhaps this might be good for Julia if (and only if) they can keep the OSS people motivated and onside.
- kejaed 11y ago
  I'm curious why you consider Matlab not an option to distribute software widely? They have the Matlab Compiler that allows you produce executables that work with the freely downloadable Matlab Compiler Runtime. I know of at least one software product, Imatest, that is produced and distributed this way. http://www.mathworks.com/products/compiler/ http://www.mathworks.com/products/compiler/ http://www.imatest.com http://www.imatest.com
  - vegabook 11y ago
    I am given to understand that some functionality is not compilable or redistributable. I work in a fairly specialized field (fixed income term structure optimization) and this page is not encouraging (see "cannot be compiled" column): http://uk.mathworks.com/products/compiler/supported/compiler_support.html http://uk.mathworks.com/products/compiler/supported/compiler... Also, finance is a field ripe for disruption, and if you're going to disrupt, you probably don't want to be doing it by relying on an expensive piece of highly proprietary technology, is my view.
    - kejaed 11y ago
      Ah yes, great point. I suppose that ties into the whole trade off one has in using Matlab in the first place: locking in to a proprietary commerical product to spend more time on problem-space work and less on managing memory and I/O etc. You get to pay up front to get working on your problem more quickly, and you pay again later on with a potential lack of flexibility. I have been burned by such a lock in before in a personal project where the commerical make an app easily SDK was discontinued and left in the dust with all the developers left holding their collective unupdateabale apps in their hands.
  - cschmidt 11y ago
    They have carefully left out certain key capabilities in the Matlab compiler, that renders it not very useful for some applications. So it is cool, but check the list of compilable functions.