FacelessJim

4 ms·

31.
by FacelessJim 7mo ago
As a sibling comment mentions, yes it does. Just don’t expect to have code that runs as fast as C without some effort put into it. You still need to write your program in a static enough way to obtain those speed. It’s not the easiest thing
32.
by FacelessJim 8mo ago
This was supposed to be under a different post. Not the main article. Whops.
33.
by FacelessJim 8mo ago
That post is 10 years old, stale, with all issues resolved and more. Waving around an outdated blogpost as if it would automatically invalidate everything is just silly at this point.
34.
by FacelessJim 10mo ago
Checkout PythonCall.jl and juliacall (on the python side). Not to mention that now you can literally write python wrappers of Julia compiled libraries like you would c++ ones.
35.
by FacelessJim 10mo ago
Yeah, it didn’t have the explosive success that rust had. Most probably due to a mixture of factors, like the niche/academic background and not being really a language to look at if you didn’t do numerc computing (at the beginning) and
36.
by FacelessJim 1y ago
aot will help a lot. In cases of simple programs you can also start Julia with no optimizations, which trade off the startup latency for runtime speed.
37.
by FacelessJim 1y ago
You should give Julia a go, can be written completely static if desired (not as static as rust of course, but compared to python it’s miles ahead). Can be made fast, very fast. AOT compilation with trimmed executables is coming in 1.12
38.
by FacelessJim 1y ago
It is often the case, that one’s perspective is a personal synthesis of external ideas. The act of quoting great past authors is also a way of recognizing where your influences come from. To describe by association how you think, or aspire
39.
by FacelessJim 1y ago
This reminds me of a little project [1] I had fun with to try and compute the sharpness of a position and/or evaluate whole lines. Indeed, the notion of sharpness (which I believe it’s different from complexity) although easy to intuit
40.
by FacelessJim 1y ago
I did something very similar some years ago while learning metal [1], I recall them being called "boids". I spent days just playing with the various parameters, luckily my implementation was not as pretty as the one offered in the
41.
by FacelessJim 1y ago
This site is unreadable on mobile. Too many nested bullet points
42.
by FacelessJim 1y ago
You should give Julia a shot. That’s basically that. You can start with super dynamic code in a REPL and gradually hammer it into stricter and hyper efficient code. It doesn’t have a borrow checker, but it’s expressive enough that you can w
43.
by FacelessJim 2y ago
The “proportionality constant” is doing a lot of work in that claim. A lot of “constant” parameters are swept under the rug. If you fix enough stuff that claim is indeed correct, although I agree a bit simplistic
44.
by FacelessJim 2y ago
This feels a bit disingenious. All the languages brought as an example need some sort of handling of the `not found` case. In C++ and Go you need to check against null pointers (or don't but then encounter segafults), Haskell and Rust
45.
by FacelessJim 2y ago
This is something that I have always strived for, and try to practice every living moment. You put in clearer and more detailed words what I have been trying to develop by myself. I will be forever grateful for the time I spent practicing m