On Monday, 17 February 2014 17:56:39 UTC+1, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > I'm actually quite sympathetic to this idea. I suspect that Jeff thinks > it's a bit of a waste of time but might be fine with using one as long as > he didn't have to put effort into creating it. My guess is that Viral > doesn't really care, and Alan is actively waging a war against spaces, so > he might be miffed to have them automatically inserted everywhere ;-) >
OTOH it will automatically trim off those forgotten half-a-dozen spaces/tabs at the end of a line after major code refactoring, so it might be worth the trade-off ;-). > This is actually less relevant to Julia than you might think. [reasons why] > Now that you mention it, what I enjoyed when reading the Julia manual was indeed how minimalist yet "complete" the core language felt. Thanks to multiple dispatch, API changes can be easily handled via > deprecation. > Still, automated help with refactoring can't be a bad thing for any language, right? On the other hand, since dynamic languages like Julia are inherently hard > to statically analyze, we can't handle really API changes at the level of > AST transformations like Go can – because you can't in general statically > resolve what function a call actually invokes. Oh, right... darn it. Off-topic, it's kind of interesting to compare Go and Julia; I like both languages, but they couldn't be more different in many of their design decisions. Yet those decisions make sense when you look at different the problems they are trying to solve.
