News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The unreasonable effectiveness of the Julia programming l... by st1x7 on Friday October 09, 2020 @09:47AM (#24729853)
> but these days the development focus seems to be on type hints and unicode support.

It's a result of the language maturing. The tradeoff is between groundbreaking innovation and being a stable language with a large user base. You can't have it both ways.

Re:The unreasonable effectiveness of the Julia programming l... by rich_sasha on Friday October 09, 2020 @12:17PM (#24731389)
There are features Python is missing as a scientific language, that are not a focus. Proper multicore support, GIL, any static safety (which type hints sort of address but not really).

It was fine in Python 2, it was cheap and cheerful. It feels likes Python 3 is running out of ideas for improvement, and yet these are not at all in the scope of work.

Cf Julia that treats all these features as first class problems.

Re:The unreasonable effectiveness of the Julia programming l... by andi999 on Friday October 09, 2020 @09:10PM (#24735942)
I am wondering if this is really a problem? I just parallelized some numerical code and instead of threads (Gil problem), I use processes. As far as I understand the only drawback would be that the parallel items cannot share memory, well do you do that? I find it hard to reason about correctness in these cases.
Re:The unreasonable effectiveness of the Julia programming l... by rich_sasha on Sunday October 11, 2020 @08:15AM (#24745271)
This works a bit. But sometimes sharing memory is useful. Sometimes you may want to parallelise a local function, or a callable class instance - except you can't.

And when I say, "it works", that's clearly on Linux and Mac. On Windows multiprocessing is very severely stunted by lack of forking.

Meanwhile, probably even my watch supports threads.