> the biggest drawback was the risk that the language might die in 5 years.
With virtualization technology, one can always take a snapshot of a
working installation, and then the problem is simply reduced to
finding a virtualization environment that is sufficiently backwards
compatible that it can
>
> The fast speed and short development time were the deciding factors here,
> but the biggest drawback was the risk that the language might die in 5
> years. Any material that I could use if that argument comes up again?
The argument I would make is that Julia already has a fairly substantial
c
IMO there is no way to ensure that a new language like Julia will live
(= have a viable, active community which keeps improving the language
and the libraries) over a 5-year timeframe. I really hope it will, but
there is no way to be sure.
That said, since it is open source, the client will always
Back on topic, I just convinced a client to use Julia with my current
project. It will be an online image processing tool. The other choices were
Matlab and Python with C#.
The fast speed and short development time were the deciding factors here,
but the biggest drawback was the risk that the l
The package is very similiar to Gloptipoly or SparsePOP, and it can be
found here:
https://github.com/joachimdahl/Polyopt.jl
It was a design decision to keep the API close to the formulation of the
Lasserre hierarchy, so that there is a close correspondence between the
problem you specify and the
Joachim, would you share this toolbox for polynomial optimisation? Is it on
GitHub?
I guess you wrote something's equivalent to yalmip or sostools. Did you compare
performances?
Davide
My story is similar. I have no reservations recommending Julia to
colleagues what-so-ever.
I write optimization software for a living, and I've used the basic parts
of Matlab or Python + addons in past, but always got so annoyed that I
switched back and forth between them for different proj
On Thursday, 5 March 2015 18:49:24 UTC+1, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>
> It's the people who are desperately unhappy with what they currently use
> that might really benefit – and those people do exist.
>
*raises his hand*
That is exactly me. For years I have wanted a language for scientific
comp
I know some colleagues who are specifically waiting for the debugger to
improve before adapting Julia, especially for teaching, so these things
can be a deal-breaker for some people, even if the core is stable.
I can easily live with the changes in the core language --- where I
would like to see s
On Thu, Mar 05 2015, Christoph Ortner wrote:
> I like Juno and I think ESS is ok, but I would call neither "mature", e.g.,
> missing debugger, profiling is not built-in, auto-complete is far from
> perfect and getting help text in the editor does not work consistently
> either. And finally breaki
There's a big difference between immaturity of development tools – IDE,
debugger, etc. – and stability and reliability of the language runtime
itself. The Julia runtime is quite stable and usable for production once
you've got a set of packages that work nicely together installed. Getting
to that p
On Thursday, 5 March 2015 17:49:24 UTC, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Christoph Ortner > wrote:
>
>> For this reason, while I am happy to talk about how nice Julia is, I
>>> will not try to convince people to switch to it. IMO the people who are
>>> potential switch
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Christoph Ortner wrote:
> For this reason, while I am happy to talk about how nice Julia is, I
>> will not try to convince people to switch to it. IMO the people who are
>> potential switchers at this stage have already looked at Julia, and
>> evangelizing more agg
I'm like you Seth in that I don't use most of the stuff that people on this
list talk about. I also have no frame-of-reference to MATLAB, just a
Python/R/SQL guy (and recovering SAS user).
For me, the language is plenty stable, but I also appreciate a challenge.
But for my common workflow, I mo
On Thursday, 5 March 2015 17:00:00 UTC+1, Páll Haraldsson wrote:
>
> In astronomy MATLAB is definitely not standard.
>>
>
> He's not doing astrobiology, it's more down to earth :) I was just
> repeating what he said,
>
I know. I was replying to his comment. I know it wasn't from you.
> not
>
> If someone could copy the Matlab IDE before they switched to the ribbon
> GUI interface I would be immensely happy. A real debugger is a must.
>
> Icing on the cake would be the ability to create static executables.
>
I am unfortunately not able to spend a lot of time contributing to op
On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 2:52:06 PM UTC, Daniel Carrera wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 4 March 2015 14:19:39 UTC+1, Páll Haraldsson wrote:
>>
>> 2. A friend, [..] Says MATLAB is standard in the scientific world, what
>> you use when publishing articles.. Also isn't really too unsatisfied with
I'm probably one of the few Julia users who's NOT using it for scientific /
numerical analysis / very-obscure-technical-field work. I'm just a general
programmer - I'm more interested in getting data from point A to point B,
processing it quickly (whether that's parsing web server logs or creati
On Wednesday, 4 March 2015 14:19:39 UTC+1, Páll Haraldsson wrote:
>
> 2. A friend, a guy I consider a programmer wizard from my youth, MS in
> engineering/PhD computer science, now working in systems biology and
> teaches computer science classes in my university.
>
> Uses MATLAB (and C++ for p
:D I suck!
On Thursday, 5 March 2015 15:14:59 UTC+1, Ivar Nesje wrote:
>
> I'd also like a REPL command which prints out a list of all of the
>> objects currently in memory space (like 'whos' in Octave)
>
> I'd recommend you try the obscurely named whos() in Julia :)
>
> torsdag 5. mars 2015 14
Thank you, by the way.
David.
On Thursday, 5 March 2015 15:17:25 UTC+1, David Higgins wrote:
>
> :D I suck!
>
> On Thursday, 5 March 2015 15:14:59 UTC+1, Ivar Nesje wrote:
>>
>> I'd also like a REPL command which prints out a list of all of the
>>> objects currently in memory space (like 'whos
>
> I'd also like a REPL command which prints out a list of all of the
> objects currently in memory space (like 'whos' in Octave)
I'd recommend you try the obscurely named whos() in Julia :)
torsdag 5. mars 2015 14.38.05 UTC+1 skrev David Higgins følgende:
>
> Oh, and an IDE is the other requ
Oh, and an IDE is the other requirement of my hard core programming
brethren. The debugger is higher on their list of priorities, but the IDE
is also vital (and one capable of handling projects, etc. we do large scale
numerical projects).
David.
On Thursday, 5 March 2015 14:35:23 UTC+1, David
I agree with many of the comments above. I recommend Julia only to a subset
of my colleagues. From Matlab the barrier to entry is incredibly low and
you gain on both speed and price, the only argument against is that Matlab
users tend to have years of experience in their one language and not suc
>
> For this reason, while I am happy to talk about how nice Julia is, I
> will not try to convince people to switch to it. IMO the people who are
> potential switchers at this stage have already looked at Julia, and
> evangelizing more aggressively could be counterproductive at this stage.
I th
unfortunately I have not found time to work on Juliette so this is only a
prototype and likely not working with newer Gtk.jl versions. But the aim
was indeed to make an IDE for Julia.
Cheers
Tobias
Am Donnerstag, 5. März 2015 09:36:03 UTC+1 schrieb Luke Stagner:
>
> Robert,
> Although it is s
On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 4:52:43 PM UTC, Tamas Papp wrote:
>
> Even outside stats, Julia is a moving target, with nontrivial changes in
> syntax and semantics in the core language, and large changes in library
> code.
>
I'm getting some mixed signals on this.. [regarding the core languag
Robert,
Although it is still under development it looks like
https://github.com/tknopp/Julietta.jl might be just what your looking for.
At the very least you should keep an eye on it.
On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 1:41:39 PM UTC-8, Robert wrote:
>
> Dear Mike, thanks a lot for your reply! I wi
Dear Mike, thanks a lot for your reply! I will study Juno again, in a
couple of days when I calmed down from my frustrating 2 weeks to get
started with Julia. I here would like to express to you my big THANK YOU! I
really appreciate your efforts in the Juno development, and with my (only)
two y
Robert, I think it might be helpful to point you towards the Juno docs:
http://junolab.org/docs/
If you look over it you should find references for the basic commands
you'll need (really you shouldn't need many at all), and if there's
anything missing I'm happy to help out / add things in. Should
I tried to use Julia, but give up. Right now.
I just came here to search again for posts about IDEs for Julia and found
this thread. So let me comment why I am giving up: because there is no IDE
available which would really support me to get my things done.
MATLAB speed can be slow, and Julia mi
Quoth Haskell: avoid success at all costs.
>
> For this reason, while I am happy to talk about how nice Julia is, I
> will not try to convince people to switch to it. IMO the people who are
> potential switchers at this stage have already looked at Julia, and
> evangelizing more aggressively could be counterproductive at this stage.
Big +
Even outside stats, Julia is a moving target, with nontrivial changes in
syntax and semantics in the core language, and large changes in library
code.
While this is natural (and beneficial) in a new language, one has to
have a preference for other benefits (eg the clarity and the design of
the lan
On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 2:20:38 PM UTC, Iain Dunning wrote:
>
> I guess I (or rather, we) have had disproportional success recruiting new
> Julia users.
>
You may have one more user..
>[your competion] "either proprietary or slow"
I forget the name of the package our professor used but y
I guess I (or rather, we) have had disproportional success recruiting new
Julia users. "We" are a group of PhD students at the MIT Operations
Research Center, and we basically made tools that we wanted (JuliaOpt) -
and even better, found others elsewhere who also had tools they wanted.
Now, the
36 matches
Mail list logo
