So, question would be: Is it possible to have an include like command that puts everthing into its own scope (using let?)?
Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2014 15:48:26 UTC+2 schrieb Arnaud Amiel: > > Exactly my problem here, stuggling to understand what "global variables" > are in the context of what I see as a script which I assumed was running in > its own context. > > I am new to Julia and hardly ever used dynamic languages before so lots of > strange and magic behaviour here for me. Some of my problems might be > obvious for people here but for not me as the only real programming I have > done was device drivers in C and assembly more than 10 years ago. So don't > take any of my comments as criticism of the work done on Julia but rather > as complete lack of understanding of what is going on and a willingness to > learn. > > I hope no one was offended here and keep up the good work > > On Thursday, 24 July 2014 12:42:32 UTC+1, Tomas Lycken wrote: > >> (Making an attempt at going back somewhat on topic...) >> >> I think some of the frustration here is also that it's not entirely >> obvious even from the performance tips >> <http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/performance-tips/> that >> putting your code in a function will make such a huge difference. The >> mechanisms that are responsible for making it so are explained in detail in >> the very first section ("Avoid global variables") but I can understand why >> especially people new to Julia don't immediately associate this to putting >> code in a function when measuring performance. Perhaps renaming the section >> to "Avoid global variables, and put your code in functions" would help >> straighten some of these question marks out? >> >> //T >> >> On Thursday, July 24, 2014 6:29:59 AM UTC+2, Tony Kelman wrote: >>> >>> Live editor/IDE integration of linting (and type-checking) a la Matlab >>> would be quite nice to have one of these days. Julia seems to self-select >>> for the type of people who actually listen to suggestions and are willing >>> to experiment with refactoring and profiling, but I still fear the piles of >>> awful Matlab code I've dealt with over the years with every single line >>> covered in orange underlines (I think we've all been there). Tough balance >>> to strike with "if you ignore these, your code will run slowly" in a way >>> that doesn't lead to new users just tuning out all advice. >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:27:24 PM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >>>> >>>> My inclination is to include type checking and linting in base Julia, >>>> automatically invoked by a "paranoid" mode that also ignores inbounds >>>> annotations and such. Then the testing infrastructure should run tests in >>>> paranoid mode, linting and type checking the code to be tested. This seems >>>> like a good point to have that kind of check automatically since you're >>>> already asking for that kind of feedback. Since packages should always >>>> have >>>> tests, this will also serve to make sure that packages pass type check and >>>> lint inspection. >>>> >>>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 2:05 PM, Sam L <sam.l...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > 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. >>>> >>>> Maybe Lint and TypeCheck should display their message with a >>>> `suggest("blah")` or `hint("blah")` that is printed in purple instead of a >>>> red warning. :) >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:39:11 PM UTC-7, Bradley Alpert wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I for one am thrilled to be able to program every day in such a >>>>> beautiful, flexible, clean language with generally good performance and >>>>> in >>>>> which sparkling performance is possible. By comparison, performance >>>>> instability is a minor matter. >>>>> >>>>> There, I have thoroughly discredited myself by banal chatter! >>>>> >>>>>
