> If you, say, use python, you better triple check that no dict is getting mutated under the hood when you pass it into a function, etc.
That's a bug in your code, not in Python.
The Julia correctness issues are things like basic math functions, called in simple normal ways, returning wrong numbers.
Re:What's Great about Julia?
by staticfloat on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @09:40PM
(#33903425)
> The Julia correctness issues are things like basic math functions, called in simple normal ways, returning wrong numbers.
If you have an example of this, I'd be interested in tracking it down. I didn't see this in Yuri's blog post, nor am I aware of any egregious examples of this right now.
I was thinking of the first example he links, with the Dirichlet density.
That is a closed issue from a Julia package. I'm sure I could go to popular packages from any language and find bug reports.
> Hate to say this but checking for correctness is your job.
Yes. But also No.
The "No" case being if you run your data through a well established program or library already known in academia to have been scrutinized to give accurate results to the 20th decimal place of precision.
How do you feel about bugs in the number system because let me tell you IEE-754 doesn't give correct results.
Hate to say this but checking for correctness is your job. There is no programming system that will be 100% correct. Yes, it sucks when a language might break your mental model of how it works (and I'm not speaking for Julia, I don't use it anymore, it's possible the correctness bugs are egregious) but you should be writing extensive tests if you're truly worried about having to retract a paper. If you, say, use python, you better triple check that no dict is getting mutated under the hood when you pass it into a function, etc.