What's bad about Julia?

Re:What's bad about Julia? by hobofan on Monday July 26, 2021 @03:54PM (#27964541)

Yes, Julia has them, but if you use them, it basically renders one of the promised advantages of Julia ("it does away with the two-language problem") moot, as you now have two languages anyway. If you have to languages anyway, why not use one of the more established languages?

----

I personally don't subscribe to the idea that the "two-language problem" is a problem that needs fixing. In the end your stack will have multiple languages anyway, unless you rewrite everything is Julia, which is utopian, so having one more isn't really a problem (and it might also be one that you are already using).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What's bad about Julia? by thebooktocome on Monday July 26, 2021 @04:27PM (#27964992)

> Yes, Julia is faster than R and Python (just the language, not packages), but R and Python can easily integrate with C/C++ and many R and Python packages are in fact internally C/C++.

This is what I was responding to. The grandparent argued that Julia had less library support than R and Python because, so they implied, those languages could interop with C/C++ in a way Julia can't.

The two language problem refers to code in user space, anyway. It's not like Rust, where there are so many wheel-reinventing projects in progress. If you peruse the main Julia package registry, and you'll see plenty of library-wrapping modules.

[ Parent | on HN ]