Matthias Felleisen <matth...@felleisen.org> writes: > It is rare that I have to somewhat-contradict Matthew here, but so it goes. > > One of my colleagues, Jan Vitek, has studied Julia with a special > focus on performance. As many have said, Julia is good at numerics > because its compiler can specialize certain cases really well. More
I'd really like to see something like Julia as a special-purpose language in a general-purpose language ecosystem such as Racket. Having to choose between numerical performance and good support for non-numerical stuff such as user interfaces is a real pain. Given that performance almost always trumps everything else in number crunching, the result is that number crunching software is always bad from every point of view other than performance. Konrad. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
