On Friday, December 5, 2014 2:39:11 PM UTC, Tim Holy wrote: > > I'm glad you're enthusiastic about Julia. If you're looking to pitch in, > one > good place to look is the list of open issues: > https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues > If you're most interested in "features," filtering on the "up for grabs" > label > might be a good start. >
I did.. The "issue" was closed and I was pointed to the groups. Anyway I noted the Prolog answer in this thread. I have my forth issue comming but think I'll post in julia-dev for discussion first as not really a "bug".. > Best, > --Tim > > On Friday, December 05, 2014 06:00:31 AM Páll Haraldsson wrote: > > On Friday, December 5, 2014 11:34:46 AM UTC, Tamas Papp wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 05 2014, Páll Haraldsson <pall.ha...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 5, 2014 8:54:26 AM UTC, Tamas Papp wrote: > > > >> I find your aversion to femtolisp difficult to understand, probably > > > >> because I tend to think of Julia as a Lisp with the following key > > > > > > > >> features: > > > > I don't really have an aversion to femtolisp. I understand it's an > > > > > > awesome > > > > > > > implementation of Scheme. > > > > > > > > If you "think of Julia as a Lisp" (including Scheme, right?) then > when > > > > would you prefer Lisp (or Scheme) for new things after Julia came > along? > > > > > > Sorry, but did you read my e-mail? As I said, Julia is much more > > > optimizable > > > > > > > > > > > > with its richer type system, which is a great advantage for > > > me. Common Lisp is remarkably nice, but > > > > Yes I did read it. Note, I meant would you still recommend (Common) Lisp > > for anything, you seem to argue well for Julia (and against > > "Lisp"/S-expressions while you're at it?). Note also, I said "would you > > prefer Lisp (or Scheme)". I know Scheme is a dialect of Lisp and Racket > of > > Scheme, but am not expert on the differences. I may be grouping all the > > Lisps together unfairly. Your objections to Common Lisp may not > generalize > > to them all. > > > > Personally, I like S-expressions too, but many people prefer > > > > > M-expressions, especially for math (they are indeed more compact). > > > > Is there a good way to call any (or all) of the S-expressions languages > > from Julia? I'm not even sure it's important too, there could be lots of > > useful preexisting code. > > > > > >> I am not so > > > >> sure that current technology allows a single language to be good at > > > >> everything, languages like C seem to be difficult to replace with > > > >> dynamic languages in some situations. > > > > > > These are very abstract points, and I am not sure that discussing them > > > as such is very productive. As many have remarked in this thread, > > > languages are tools, designed for a given prupose. Is a hammer better > > > than a screwdriver? Etc. > > > > Libraries are also "tools", I'm just not at all convinced we need many > > languages (for different "purposes", maybe with very few limited > > exceptions) rather than just new libraries. That seems to be a failure > of > > computer science. > > > > > > Why? For C, Julia seems already better for almost all users. If > > > > > > "languages > > > > > > > like C" means C++, I could see all new code in Julia and C++ as > legacy. > > > > What other "like C" do you mean? > > > > > > Again, I am wondering if you actually read the replies to your > > > questions. Many have remarked on these issues in their replies to you, > > > eg dynamic vs manual memory allocation, etc. C, C++, and Fortran are > > > fundamentally different from Julia at the moment. > > > > I read all the replies (might have missed some). I already mentioned > > dynamic memory allocation in my first post as a temporary limitation > > (currently would be a problem for very few users/uses). Never programmed > in > > Fortran but think it also uses manual memory allocation. While Julia > uses > > those languages in part I think manual is not the reason for their (or > > Julia's) speed; in general that they are fundamentally different in a > > better way or others. Garbage collection can be hard real-time and fast > > (and Julia - the core language wouldn't need changes that break > > compatibility). > > > > or by > > > > > helping to discover where it could be improved. > > > > > > Partly why I'm writing this. I want to know what needs improving or if > > > > something can't be improved, unless breaking things in a minor way or > > fundamentally that Julia can't work. > > > > > Frankly, I don't understand your decision problem -- are you trying to > > > decide whether to invest learning in Julia vs some other language? > Even > > > though that question does not have a well-defined answer either, it is > > > possible that you would get more useful advice. > > > > Yes, I'm not too worried about me. I don't think I'm wasting time > learning > > (more about) Julia, I just do not want to point people to it if there > are > > even better languages available or if there is some defect in Julia I'm > > missing. It seems to be a good first language to learn, not just for > > "matrix methods" (is that all the Universities have started teaching > with > > Julia?). > > > > Best regards, > > Palli. > >
