Admit that you really want to program in OCaml ;-)
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:39 AM, John Myles White <johnmyleswh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I think the difficulty here is that the people who are worst affected by > these kinds of performance changes may be people who also might not know that > they should opt in to using Lint/TypeCheck. To get the proper effect from > those tools, you probably need to impose them from above by default rather > than allow them to be available if asked for. > > I'd be strongly in favor of that, but it would make Julia feel more like one > of those static languages for which compilers readily warn you about your bad > habits. > > -- John > >> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Patrick O'Leary <patrick.ole...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:49:28 PM UTC-5, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >>> I definitely agree that the current status is suboptimal. Lord only knows >>> I've spent a lot of time thinking about ways to fix the slow global scope >>> issue. Many but by no means all of these thoughts are in the issues Jacob >>> linked to. If we figure out a solution that seems to be the right way to do >>> it, it will be a really good day. Until then, it seems to me that the point >>> of view that it's a bad thing to get a 32x speedup with very little effort >>> or change is a lousy way to look at things. A lot of effort has been put >>> into allowing that 32x speedup. Not coincidentally, 32x is about how much >>> slower Python is for this kind of code; Matlab, R and Octave are slower. >> >> I suspect some of the reaction amounts to what appears to be performance >> instability--if small changes can have such large effects, and you don't yet >> understand why, it can be unsettling because it feels like you're on a knife >> edge you could fall off of at any moment with one errant keystroke. And you >> don't know what keystroke that is. A value of developing tools like Lint and >> TypeCheck are that they can help make the effects of these "small changes" >> more transparent. >
