Re:Not only for technical computing: changing the narrative ...
by jjnoakes on Thursday January 24, 2019 @03:26PM
(#18992567)
For the uneducated among us who are considering learning Julia (and who have decent type system knowledge), where does Julia fall short for static type enthusiasts?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Not only for technical computing: changing the narrative ...
by ninjaaron on Thursday January 24, 2019 @04:32PM
(#18993211)
You don't have to declare types, but they are enforced when you do declare them. I'm not exactly how this is bad. Anyway, you can get into a scenario like you do with Python where type errors occur at runtime if you're not using a typed function.
I'm fine with it, as you might expect from the fact that I'm the author of the linked post.
Re:Not only for technical computing: changing the narrative ...
by choeger on Saturday January 26, 2019 @06:34AM
(#19005881)
Julia checks types dynamically. It's type system depends on the evaluation first. So any errors are catched eventually, but not on your desk.
Re:Not only for technical computing: changing the narrative ...
by ninjaaron on Tuesday February 05, 2019 @05:29AM
(#19084133)
This is only partially true. Almost all types are known at compile time because Julia was designed with static evaluation in mind. Many type errors are caught at compile time.