> More generally, it is important to keep the option of > very simple (Matlab-style) Julia. I wonder whether users > could come up with other examples where "simplicity, > convenience" are sacrificed for "performance, elegance > of design, etc" ?
I confess that I don't like that all four of the following display in major or slightly different ways in 0.4. Yes, Float16 is only a storage class and so on for the other types, but it still looks awkward to me that they all display differently. exp(Float16(1)) exp(Float32(1)) exp(Float64(1)) exp(BigFloat(1)) Also, I really want to type [1:2] rather than [1:2;] for a column vector. Even though I occasionally have problems like those above, I generally find Julia simple to learn and that I can use simple (Matlab-style) code if I want to. On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Stefan Karpinski <ste...@karpinski.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:24 PM, <ele...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The problem is that its fairly easy to be casually wrong when using reals >> as indexes. What does 10. index? (Hint: floating point numbers can't >> represent 10 exactly, its 9.999999...) > > > This is simply untrue. All integers between ±2^53 can be represented > exactly as Float64s. Beyond that, many integers can be represented exactly, > but not all of them. > -- chris.p...@ieee.org
