Re:Potential of the Julia programming language for high ener...
by bobbylarrybobby on Monday December 04, 2023 @11:08PM
(#38526987)
Julia doesn't even have upper-exclusive ranges — `0:0` has length 1. (The length-0 sequence starting at 0 is, naturally, `0:-1`.) It fails on both counts!
Re:Potential of the Julia programming language for high ener...
by kelipso on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @08:52PM
(#38539587)
Lol sorry but if you read it, Dijkstra's argument for 0-based indexing is literally that it looks prettier... I really wonder if anyone who has posted that link ever read the actual argument and thought about it critically.
Re:Potential of the Julia programming language for high ener...
by jampekka on Thursday December 07, 2023 @03:55AM
(#38554348)
He gives various reasons and practical examples for it.
Re:Potential of the Julia programming language for high ener...
by kelipso on Saturday December 09, 2023 @08:40AM
(#38581832)
One can give analogous reasons (literally his main reason is it looks nicer lol) and practical examples that looks nicer in 1-based indexing too. It's a terrible argument that somehow got memed over way too long a time. Probably because no one needs to read the text, just post the link and you're done.
The big selling point from the getgo was that Julia is general purpose. It's now over 10 years and it's still about as general purpose as MATLAB (although on a totally different level design-wise).
A big smell from the getgo was 1-based indexing. I appreciate that it's more familiar from some branches of math and physics (and MATLAB), and it's something I could live with, but more or less all general purpose languages index from zero. And there's a good reason for that. And that makes interoperability trickier.
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E...