I really want to like Julia. It has a nice type system, a good ecosystem, reasonable syntax, and it’s far faster than Python. But there are several issues with its DX that prevent me from using it: the most severe of which being the complete lack of a cache for the JIT (or JIT like system), inducing multi second compile times for scripts that run in <100ms. There are some external packages that try to solve this issue, but they are far from first-party quality, and, in my experience, are quite buggy.
(I last tried Julia a few years ago; perhaps this has been improved since?)
Julia is my go-to when I need a fast language that I can reason about in a functional way. The type system is fine, the pattern matching is pretty darn good, the metaprogramming story could be significantly better but it’s not bad and boy howdy it’s fast. So stinking fast.
Julia uses 1-based indexing. It's competes with R and Matlab for the same set of users. Both R and Julia have their core functions written in C++. Absolutely nothing new.
From my experience, grad students use Julia when their PI thinks a new programming language will help differentiate their next NSF proposal among vast funding requests.
> Both R and Julia have their core functions written in C++. Absolutely nothing new.
imo this isn't really a good summary. Julia is one of the 3 languages to have done an exascale HPC run https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.10292v1 (Fortran and C are the other 2). Some parts of the compiler are written in c++ (the llvm interface), but doing codegen with llvm is much more similar to C/Rust/Fortran than R/Matlab
It kinda feels like Julia competes for the people who write the libraries for R and Matlab. Writing fast and elegant ODE solvers, etc in Julia seems to be easier than the others and they've attracted a lot of academics for that reason.
I'm currently split between Python and Julia, having used R happily in the past for data analysis and Matlab for this and that in my EE program. For me, Julia crushes one niche that the rest of them are not good at: making the math look like the math.
If you've used something like SciPy or symbolic Matlab or Maxima or whatever, it always feels like I'm very carefully converting the equations I've scribbled down on paper into code and always a little nervous that I've accidentally split one variable into two names or used the wrong equality operator and am going to end up hating life, or accidentally assigned x = sp.Symbol("y") somewhere.
The Julia version is just plain beautiful. There's no ceremony other than the three @parameters, @variables, @mtkcompile macros. It lives in its own little world where you don't have to constantly watch your back to make sure you haven't duplicated a symbol somewhere.
I really want to like Julia. It has a nice type system, a good ecosystem, reasonable syntax, and it’s far faster than Python. But there are several issues with its DX that prevent me from using it: the most severe of which being the complete lack of a cache for the JIT (or JIT like system), inducing multi second compile times for scripts that run in <100ms. There are some external packages that try to solve this issue, but they are far from first-party quality, and, in my experience, are quite buggy.
(I last tried Julia a few years ago; perhaps this has been improved since?)
a between session cache had been merged for 1.14 (release expected within 6-12 months).
What is this magic, how does it differ from PkgImages Julia already has?
Julia is my go-to when I need a fast language that I can reason about in a functional way. The type system is fine, the pattern matching is pretty darn good, the metaprogramming story could be significantly better but it’s not bad and boy howdy it’s fast. So stinking fast.
Thought that it would be about Lisp....
It was about lisp ;)
Secret mode: ./julia —-lisp
Yet another example of MIT taking far too much credit for something...
I've seen JuliaHub taking credit for all of Julia before. I don't think there's anything new in this article
Julia uses 1-based indexing. It's competes with R and Matlab for the same set of users. Both R and Julia have their core functions written in C++. Absolutely nothing new.
From my experience, grad students use Julia when their PI thinks a new programming language will help differentiate their next NSF proposal among vast funding requests.
> Both R and Julia have their core functions written in C++. Absolutely nothing new.
imo this isn't really a good summary. Julia is one of the 3 languages to have done an exascale HPC run https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.10292v1 (Fortran and C are the other 2). Some parts of the compiler are written in c++ (the llvm interface), but doing codegen with llvm is much more similar to C/Rust/Fortran than R/Matlab
It kinda feels like Julia competes for the people who write the libraries for R and Matlab. Writing fast and elegant ODE solvers, etc in Julia seems to be easier than the others and they've attracted a lot of academics for that reason.
I'm currently split between Python and Julia, having used R happily in the past for data analysis and Matlab for this and that in my EE program. For me, Julia crushes one niche that the rest of them are not good at: making the math look like the math.
https://docs.sciml.ai/ModelingToolkit/stable/tutorials/nonli...
If you've used something like SciPy or symbolic Matlab or Maxima or whatever, it always feels like I'm very carefully converting the equations I've scribbled down on paper into code and always a little nervous that I've accidentally split one variable into two names or used the wrong equality operator and am going to end up hating life, or accidentally assigned x = sp.Symbol("y") somewhere.
The Julia version is just plain beautiful. There's no ceremony other than the three @parameters, @variables, @mtkcompile macros. It lives in its own little world where you don't have to constantly watch your back to make sure you haven't duplicated a symbol somewhere.