Re:What else are we getting wrong about programming languages?
by Xcelerate on Sunday October 30, 2016 @05:56PM
(#12832609)
I love Julia's type system. I just wish the whole thing was static (I've never had a case where the Any type worked better than explicitly specifying a type).
Re:What else are we getting wrong about programming languages?
by dnautics on Sunday October 30, 2016 @06:49PM
(#12832959)
It works fine when you are lazy... I didn't feel like figuring out a type for a dictionary that was stashing parameters, so I just made it {symbol, any}.
Re:What else are we getting wrong about programming languages?
by lambdasquirrel on Sunday October 30, 2016 @05:30PM
(#12832458)
What build tools would you use with it?
Re:What else are we getting wrong about programming languages?
by dnautics on Sunday October 30, 2016 @06:52PM
(#12832977)
I don't think those sorts of things are a good use case for Julia. Julia is best used for deploying backend mathematics. I'm just suggesting the type system is beautiful, and if someone wanted to implement a more general purpose language with that type system it might be welcome.
Re:What else are we getting wrong about programming languages?
by Jcol1 on Monday October 31, 2016 @12:07PM
(#12838098)
How is julia or it's type system not suitable for general purpose programming? Multidispatch seems like a generalization of python...and fields don't have to be typed.
general purpose programs in julia: https://github.com/shashi/Escher.jl https://github.com/essenciary/Genie.jl
Types are tied into multiple dispatch; so the properties are defined by the functions created for it. Moreover, JITting is type-dependent; if you call a function with a type signature, it compiles it, unless it's seen that signature before.