Re: [julia-users] In what version is Julia supposed to "mature"?

[Stefan Karpinski]

Version 1.0 will be released around this time next year.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Pileas  wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I have been following the development of Julia for sometime now and I am
> really thrilled to know that you guys have reached version 0.3.11.
>
> To my understanding sometime in the near future you will release the new
> version 0.4.0., a version that it is supposed to bring many changes.
>
> My question is simple: when is Julia expected to "mature", so that a
> "universal" (more or less) documentation (or maybe more thorough books than
> those that exist by now) will follow and less bug fixed will be needed?
>
> I wish you the best!
>

Re: [julia-users] In what version is Julia supposed to "mature"?

[Kevin Squire]

Stefan, are you trolling again?  ;-P

http://julialang.org/blog/2012/02/why-we-created-julia/

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Stefan Karpinski 
wrote:

> Version 1.0 will be released around this time next year.
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Pileas 
> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I have been following the development of Julia for sometime now and I am
>> really thrilled to know that you guys have reached version 0.3.11.
>>
>> To my understanding sometime in the near future you will release the new
>> version 0.4.0., a version that it is supposed to bring many changes.
>>
>> My question is simple: when is Julia expected to "mature", so that a
>> "universal" (more or less) documentation (or maybe more thorough books than
>> those that exist by now) will follow and less bug fixed will be needed?
>>
>> I wish you the best!
>>
>
>

Re: [julia-users] In what version is Julia supposed to "mature"?

[Stefan Karpinski]

That's literally the only part of that post that I would change :-)

But no, I'm not trolling, 1.0 should be out next year. Predicting down to
the month – or even quarter – is hard, but that's what I think we're
looking at. I'll post a 1.0 roadmap issue soon.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Squire 
wrote:

> Stefan, are you trolling again?  ;-P
>
> http://julialang.org/blog/2012/02/why-we-created-julia/
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Stefan Karpinski 
> wrote:
>
>> Version 1.0 will be released around this time next year.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Pileas 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> I have been following the development of Julia for sometime now and I am
>>> really thrilled to know that you guys have reached version 0.3.11.
>>>
>>> To my understanding sometime in the near future you will release the new
>>> version 0.4.0., a version that it is supposed to bring many changes.
>>>
>>> My question is simple: when is Julia expected to "mature", so that a
>>> "universal" (more or less) documentation (or maybe more thorough books than
>>> those that exist by now) will follow and less bug fixed will be needed?
>>>
>>> I wish you the best!
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [julia-users] In what version is Julia supposed to "mature"?

[Tony Kelman]

I'm with Kevin, having followed development (too) closely for the last year 
and a half I find the prospect of 1.0 any time during 2016 totally 
ridiculous and unrelealistic. Unless you fully anticipate releasing 2.0 
some time in 2017.


On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 6:52:36 PM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>
> That's literally the only part of that post that I would change :-)
>
> But no, I'm not trolling, 1.0 should be out next year. Predicting down to 
> the month – or even quarter – is hard, but that's what I think we're 
> looking at. I'll post a 1.0 roadmap issue soon.
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Squire  > wrote:
>
>> Stefan, are you trolling again?  ;-P
>>
>> http://julialang.org/blog/2012/02/why-we-created-julia/
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Stefan Karpinski > > wrote:
>>
>>> Version 1.0 will be released around this time next year.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Pileas >> > wrote:
>>>
 Greetings,

 I have been following the development of Julia for sometime now and I 
 am really thrilled to know that you guys have reached version 0.3.11.

 To my understanding sometime in the near future you will release the 
 new version 0.4.0., a version that it is supposed to bring many changes. 

 My question is simple: when is Julia expected to "mature", so that a 
 "universal" (more or less) documentation (or maybe more thorough books 
 than 
 those that exist by now) will follow and less bug fixed will be needed?

 I wish you the best! 

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [julia-users] In what version is Julia supposed to "mature"?

[Stefan Karpinski]

Doing more frequent major releases than has been traditional for
programming languages strikes me as not a terrible idea, honestly.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Tony Kelman  wrote:

> I'm with Kevin, having followed development (too) closely for the last
> year and a half I find the prospect of 1.0 any time during 2016 totally
> ridiculous and unrelealistic. Unless you fully anticipate releasing 2.0
> some time in 2017.
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 6:52:36 PM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>>
>> That's literally the only part of that post that I would change :-)
>>
>> But no, I'm not trolling, 1.0 should be out next year. Predicting down to
>> the month – or even quarter – is hard, but that's what I think we're
>> looking at. I'll post a 1.0 roadmap issue soon.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Squire 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Stefan, are you trolling again?  ;-P
>>>
>>> http://julialang.org/blog/2012/02/why-we-created-julia/
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Stefan Karpinski >> > wrote:
>>>
 Version 1.0 will be released around this time next year.

 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Pileas  wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I have been following the development of Julia for sometime now and I
> am really thrilled to know that you guys have reached version 0.3.11.
>
> To my understanding sometime in the near future you will release the
> new version 0.4.0., a version that it is supposed to bring many changes.
>
> My question is simple: when is Julia expected to "mature", so that a
> "universal" (more or less) documentation (or maybe more thorough books 
> than
> those that exist by now) will follow and less bug fixed will be needed?
>
> I wish you the best!
>


>>>
>>

Re: [julia-users] In what version is Julia supposed to "mature"?

[Tony Kelman]

Actually considering that we've been more strict about version discipline 
than absolutely required by semver for 0.x.y, maybe we could pull a GCC and 
just start treating major number the way we've been treating minor. It 
might not be all that different, except we'd be able to do the "backporting 
features" thing and have a very good way of dealing with it. So I retract 
my incredulity.


On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 9:10:46 AM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>
> Doing more frequent major releases than has been traditional for 
> programming languages strikes me as not a terrible idea, honestly.
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Tony Kelman  > wrote:
>
>> I'm with Kevin, having followed development (too) closely for the last 
>> year and a half I find the prospect of 1.0 any time during 2016 totally 
>> ridiculous and unrelealistic. Unless you fully anticipate releasing 2.0 
>> some time in 2017.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 6:52:36 PM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>>>
>>> That's literally the only part of that post that I would change :-)
>>>
>>> But no, I'm not trolling, 1.0 should be out next year. Predicting down 
>>> to the month – or even quarter – is hard, but that's what I think we're 
>>> looking at. I'll post a 1.0 roadmap issue soon.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Squire  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Stefan, are you trolling again?  ;-P

 http://julialang.org/blog/2012/02/why-we-created-julia/

 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Stefan Karpinski <
 ste...@karpinski.org> wrote:

> Version 1.0 will be released around this time next year.
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Pileas  wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I have been following the development of Julia for sometime now and I 
>> am really thrilled to know that you guys have reached version 0.3.11.
>>
>> To my understanding sometime in the near future you will release the 
>> new version 0.4.0., a version that it is supposed to bring many changes. 
>>
>> My question is simple: when is Julia expected to "mature", so that a 
>> "universal" (more or less) documentation (or maybe more thorough books 
>> than 
>> those that exist by now) will follow and less bug fixed will be needed?
>>
>> I wish you the best! 
>>
>
>

>>>
>

Re: [julia-users] In what version is Julia supposed to "mature"?

[Stefan Karpinski]

I do believe that other languages have not really followed the semantic
versioning specification (can't blame them really since it didn't exist)
and have introduced backwards incompatible changes in minor versions. If
we're going to follow semver, then we will very likely want to make major
releases more often since we will probably have some backwards incompatible
changes we want to introduce periodically, even if they're not huge.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Tony Kelman  wrote:

> Actually considering that we've been more strict about version discipline
> than absolutely required by semver for 0.x.y, maybe we could pull a GCC and
> just start treating major number the way we've been treating minor. It
> might not be all that different, except we'd be able to do the "backporting
> features" thing and have a very good way of dealing with it. So I retract
> my incredulity.
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 9:10:46 AM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>>
>> Doing more frequent major releases than has been traditional for
>> programming languages strikes me as not a terrible idea, honestly.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Tony Kelman  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm with Kevin, having followed development (too) closely for the last
>>> year and a half I find the prospect of 1.0 any time during 2016 totally
>>> ridiculous and unrelealistic. Unless you fully anticipate releasing 2.0
>>> some time in 2017.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 6:52:36 PM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote:

 That's literally the only part of that post that I would change :-)

 But no, I'm not trolling, 1.0 should be out next year. Predicting down
 to the month – or even quarter – is hard, but that's what I think we're
 looking at. I'll post a 1.0 roadmap issue soon.

 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Squire 
 wrote:

> Stefan, are you trolling again?  ;-P
>
> http://julialang.org/blog/2012/02/why-we-created-julia/
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Stefan Karpinski <
> ste...@karpinski.org> wrote:
>
>> Version 1.0 will be released around this time next year.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Pileas 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> I have been following the development of Julia for sometime now and
>>> I am really thrilled to know that you guys have reached version 0.3.11.
>>>
>>> To my understanding sometime in the near future you will release the
>>> new version 0.4.0., a version that it is supposed to bring many changes.
>>>
>>> My question is simple: when is Julia expected to "mature", so that a
>>> "universal" (more or less) documentation (or maybe more thorough books 
>>> than
>>> those that exist by now) will follow and less bug fixed will be needed?
>>>
>>> I wish you the best!
>>>
>>
>>
>

>>

Re: [julia-users] In what version is Julia supposed to "mature"?

[Tony Kelman]

I guess the waters are a little muddied here lately with Rust having 
recently put such a big emphasis on stability and reaching 1.0, actively 
telling people not to use the language prior to that point, and seemingly 
having really high expectations about how long 1.x will last for. They have 
a much smaller standard library than we do, but I would think trimming ours 
down to the bare minimum would be necessary before calling the language 
1.0. Maybe that could just as well be a 2.0 or 3.0 target instead.


On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 9:28:56 AM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>
> I do believe that other languages have not really followed the semantic 
> versioning specification (can't blame them really since it didn't exist) 
> and have introduced backwards incompatible changes in minor versions. If 
> we're going to follow semver, then we will very likely want to make major 
> releases more often since we will probably have some backwards incompatible 
> changes we want to introduce periodically, even if they're not huge.
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Tony Kelman  > wrote:
>
>> Actually considering that we've been more strict about version discipline 
>> than absolutely required by semver for 0.x.y, maybe we could pull a GCC and 
>> just start treating major number the way we've been treating minor. It 
>> might not be all that different, except we'd be able to do the "backporting 
>> features" thing and have a very good way of dealing with it. So I retract 
>> my incredulity.
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 9:10:46 AM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>>>
>>> Doing more frequent major releases than has been traditional for 
>>> programming languages strikes me as not a terrible idea, honestly.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Tony Kelman  wrote:
>>>
 I'm with Kevin, having followed development (too) closely for the last 
 year and a half I find the prospect of 1.0 any time during 2016 totally 
 ridiculous and unrelealistic. Unless you fully anticipate releasing 2.0 
 some time in 2017.


 On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 6:52:36 PM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>
> That's literally the only part of that post that I would change :-)
>
> But no, I'm not trolling, 1.0 should be out next year. Predicting down 
> to the month – or even quarter – is hard, but that's what I think we're 
> looking at. I'll post a 1.0 roadmap issue soon.
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Squire  
> wrote:
>
>> Stefan, are you trolling again?  ;-P
>>
>> http://julialang.org/blog/2012/02/why-we-created-julia/
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Stefan Karpinski <
>> ste...@karpinski.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Version 1.0 will be released around this time next year.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Pileas  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Greetings,

 I have been following the development of Julia for sometime now and 
 I am really thrilled to know that you guys have reached version 0.3.11.

 To my understanding sometime in the near future you will release 
 the new version 0.4.0., a version that it is supposed to bring many 
 changes. 

 My question is simple: when is Julia expected to "mature", so that 
 a "universal" (more or less) documentation (or maybe more thorough 
 books 
 than those that exist by now) will follow and less bug fixed will be 
 needed?

 I wish you the best! 

>>>
>>>
>>
>
>>>
>

Re: [julia-users] In what version is Julia supposed to "mature"?

[Tomas Lycken]

There was an interesting discussion on the dev list not long ago 
 about 
the release schedule of Julia. Although it focused more on timeline and 
less on version numbering, it touched on several of the topics discussed in 
this thread as well. We do have some “expectation problems” of our own in 
the Julia community, for example as Tobi put it in the other thread:

the main issue is in my point that during a dev period feature come in and 
people start to use the dev branch for regular development. The Compat 
module is in my opinion made the wrong way around. What currently happens 
is that unstable features are bypassed into a “released” package landscape.

Julia is an awesome project, and it’s going to be an awesome product when 
it’s “done”. But currently, we’re in the middle of a phase of development 
where you cannot expect to accurately predict where we’re going to be in 
three or six months, much less predict a date for a 1.0 release (after all, 
it was once said that *“we’ve been much more on top of the release process 
this time” 
* about 
0.4, but we’re still falling behind schedule on this one too…). Don’t get 
me wrong - I think this is totally fine for a project like Julia. We 
*should* be experimenting, trying things out and taking the time to make 
sure the decisions we make are the right ones.

But maybe we should stop expecting to have a production-quality product to 
play around with.

(On the other hand, Julia programmers will probably always have high 
expectations, considering Julia’s origins 
…)

// T

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 7:00:38 PM UTC+2, Tony Kelman wrote:

I guess the waters are a little muddied here lately with Rust having 
> recently put such a big emphasis on stability and reaching 1.0, actively 
> telling people not to use the language prior to that point, and seemingly 
> having really high expectations about how long 1.x will last for. They have 
> a much smaller standard library than we do, but I would think trimming ours 
> down to the bare minimum would be necessary before calling the language 
> 1.0. Maybe that could just as well be a 2.0 or 3.0 target instead.
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 9:28:56 AM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>>
>> I do believe that other languages have not really followed the semantic 
>> versioning specification (can't blame them really since it didn't exist) 
>> and have introduced backwards incompatible changes in minor versions. If 
>> we're going to follow semver, then we will very likely want to make major 
>> releases more often since we will probably have some backwards incompatible 
>> changes we want to introduce periodically, even if they're not huge.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Tony Kelman  wrote:
>>
>>> Actually considering that we've been more strict about version 
>>> discipline than absolutely required by semver for 0.x.y, maybe we could 
>>> pull a GCC and just start treating major number the way we've been treating 
>>> minor. It might not be all that different, except we'd be able to do the 
>>> "backporting features" thing and have a very good way of dealing with it. 
>>> So I retract my incredulity.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 9:10:46 AM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote:

 Doing more frequent major releases than has been traditional for 
 programming languages strikes me as not a terrible idea, honestly.

 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Tony Kelman  wrote:

> I'm with Kevin, having followed development (too) closely for the last 
> year and a half I find the prospect of 1.0 any time during 2016 totally 
> ridiculous and unrelealistic. Unless you fully anticipate releasing 2.0 
> some time in 2017.
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 6:52:36 PM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>>
>> That's literally the only part of that post that I would change :-)
>>
>> But no, I'm not trolling, 1.0 should be out next year. Predicting 
>> down to the month – or even quarter – is hard, but that's what I think 
>> we're looking at. I'll post a 1.0 roadmap issue soon.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Squire  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Stefan, are you trolling again?  ;-P
>>>
>>> http://julialang.org/blog/2012/02/why-we-created-julia/
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Stefan Karpinski <
>>> ste...@karpinski.org> wrote:
>>>
 Version 1.0 will be released around this time next year.

 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Pileas  
 wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I have been following the development of Julia for sometime now 
> and I am really thrilled to know that you guys have reached version 
> 0.3.11.
>

Re: [julia-users] In what version is Julia supposed to "mature"?

[Eric Forgy]

Great news! :)

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 9:52:36 AM UTC+8, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>
> That's literally the only part of that post that I would change :-)
>
> But no, I'm not trolling, 1.0 should be out next year. Predicting down to 
> the month – or even quarter – is hard, but that's what I think we're 
> looking at. I'll post a 1.0 roadmap issue soon.
>

Re: [julia-users] In what version is Julia supposed to "mature"?

[Job van der Zwan]

On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 19:00:38 UTC+2, Tony Kelman wrote:
>
> I guess the waters are a little muddied here lately with Rust having 
> recently put such a big emphasis on stability and reaching 1.0, actively 
> telling people not to use the language prior to that point, and seemingly 
> having really high expectations about how long 1.x will last for. They have 
> a much smaller standard library than we do, but I would think trimming ours 
> down to the bare minimum would be necessary before calling the language 
> 1.0. Maybe that could just as well be a 2.0 or 3.0 target instead. 
>

Go did the same before. I think it's because both position themselves as 
systems languages (with slightly different - but both valid - definitions 
of "systems"). I don't think the need for stability is quite as important 
for Julia - library maintainers still care of course, but there's not as 
much infrastructure built on top of Julia that depends on guaranteed 
stability.

Re: [julia-users] In what version is Julia supposed to "mature"?

[Job van der Zwan]

Let's not turn this into a tribal language pissing contest, please.

On Thursday, 30 July 2015 15:15:42 UTC+2, Tony Kelman wrote:
>
> Hah. Go's definition of "systems" is totally invalid everywhere in the 
> world except inside Google.
>
> We also have nicer syntax macros than either of those languages. Compat 
> might start getting pretty ungainly over time, but we can use REQUIRE to 
> deal with that if the version range ever gets too intractable to support 
> everything within the same set of macros.
>
>
> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 6:08:54 AM UTC-7, Job van der Zwan wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 19:00:38 UTC+2, Tony Kelman wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess the waters are a little muddied here lately with Rust having 
>>> recently put such a big emphasis on stability and reaching 1.0, actively 
>>> telling people not to use the language prior to that point, and seemingly 
>>> having really high expectations about how long 1.x will last for. They have 
>>> a much smaller standard library than we do, but I would think trimming ours 
>>> down to the bare minimum would be necessary before calling the language 
>>> 1.0. Maybe that could just as well be a 2.0 or 3.0 target instead. 
>>>
>>
>> Go did the same before. I think it's because both position themselves as 
>> systems languages (with slightly different - but both valid - definitions 
>> of "systems"). I don't think the need for stability is quite as important 
>> for Julia - library maintainers still care of course, but there's not as 
>> much infrastructure built on top of Julia that depends on guaranteed 
>> stability.
>>
>

Re: [julia-users] In what version is Julia supposed to "mature"?

[Tom Breloff]

Then what kind of tribal language contest should it be??

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Job van der Zwan 
wrote:

> Let's not turn this into a tribal language pissing contest, please.
>
>
> On Thursday, 30 July 2015 15:15:42 UTC+2, Tony Kelman wrote:
>>
>> Hah. Go's definition of "systems" is totally invalid everywhere in the
>> world except inside Google.
>>
>> We also have nicer syntax macros than either of those languages. Compat
>> might start getting pretty ungainly over time, but we can use REQUIRE to
>> deal with that if the version range ever gets too intractable to support
>> everything within the same set of macros.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 6:08:54 AM UTC-7, Job van der Zwan wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 19:00:38 UTC+2, Tony Kelman wrote:

 I guess the waters are a little muddied here lately with Rust having
 recently put such a big emphasis on stability and reaching 1.0, actively
 telling people not to use the language prior to that point, and seemingly
 having really high expectations about how long 1.x will last for. They have
 a much smaller standard library than we do, but I would think trimming ours
 down to the bare minimum would be necessary before calling the language
 1.0. Maybe that could just as well be a 2.0 or 3.0 target instead.

>>>
>>> Go did the same before. I think it's because both position themselves as
>>> systems languages (with slightly different - but both valid - definitions
>>> of "systems"). I don't think the need for stability is quite as important
>>> for Julia - library maintainers still care of course, but there's not as
>>> much infrastructure built on top of Julia that depends on guaranteed
>>> stability.
>>>
>>