Speaking of using it in a development environment, there are two areas of interest to me, well three actually.
- Android app development. Running native code apps has huge advantages if the Android API can be somehow supported. Besides that I detest Java. Terrible decision by Google. - Second I'd love to see a cool framework for using it to develop VST audio plugins. There's a cute little free package by the makers of Reactor to do that but it's language, while a very clever use of minimalism, is not up to the task of doing many things like interfacing to external libraries and DLL's. -Last to me but hardly least in the overall scheme of things is the ability to develop Windows apps with access to .net and other Windows API's. Are any of these things possible, in progress, extant, or even a gleam in someone's eye? On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Eric Davies <[email protected]> wrote: > https://github.com/iamed2/PostgreSQL.jl > > My PostgreSQL package is in a dev state but I'm using it for an internal > project. It uses DBI.jl <https://github.com/JuliaDB/DBI.jl> at the > JuliaDB group and implements most of the interface. Contributions are > welcome and desired! Our goal is that all of the standard Julia db > interfaces will implement the DBI.jl interface, and my goal is that this > PostgreSQL package will become standard sometime after completion and > refinement. > > That said, ODBC.jl will be far more stable as it makes use of existing > (ODBC) infrastructure. > > On Friday, 21 February 2014 13:55:23 UTC-6, Tejinder Singh wrote: >> >> I would love to see Julia to work in web development. Its a great >> combination of easy of code (python) and speed (C). Is there a way to >> interact with database like postgresql? So that i could try to create basic >> CRUD app in julia? Thanks. >> >> On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 01:11:37 UTC+5:30, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >>> >>> Julia is definitely a general purpose language - but one that has been >>> carefully designed to be expressive and efficient enough to be really >>> excellent for technical computing. This is a surprisingly hard problem, as >>> evidenced by the large portion of the core specification and code for many >>> languages that consists of special cases for numbers and arithmetic. This >>> is true even for "simple" languages like C and Scheme (numerics account for >>> about 20% of the specification of each). As to the focus on technical >>> computing, I think it's better to solve one major problem really well >>> rather than trying to solve all problems at once. Computer science is doing >>> pretty well at general computing these days, whereas technical computing - >>> especially at scale - is still a significant challenge area where new >>> technologies and approaches really stand to improve things. >>> >>> Domain-specific languages (DSLs) are in vogue these days, but personally >>> I believe that we need a few very powerful, general-purpose languages, not >>> a lot of weak, special-purpose ones. I suspect that what drives the DSL >>> school of thought is the idea that we've already pushed linguistic >>> expressiveness and power as far as it can go and it hasn't solved our >>> problems. This appears to suggest that we need to go in the other direction >>> and make more limited and specialized languages. But I believe, instead, >>> that the premise that we've taken programming language expressiveness and >>> power as far as it can go is incorrect. We need to be pushing linguistic >>> power even further, rather than restricting it. >>> >>> The most obvious deficiencies in the expressiveness of typical languages >>> lie in the area of numerical work. You can't, for example, define a new >>> kind of integer in most languages and have it be both efficient and >>> seamlessly integrated with the rest of the system. In other words, the >>> built-in numerics are qualitatively superior to anything a user can define >>> for themselves. One of the major driving goals behind Julia's design was >>> that user-defined numerical types be just as good as the built-in ones. We >>> took that to its logical conclusion and made Julia's built-in numeric types >>> like Int and Float64 just user-defined types that happen to be defined >>> before your program starts. >>> >>> To the extent that you can define your own efficient and completely >>> integrated types for numerical work, Julia has already succeeded in pushing >>> the power and expressiveness of general purpose languages further than it >>> typically is. But technical computing in general still has so many >>> challenging problems that need to be solved - many of which need more power >>> from the underlying language. For example, we're only beginning to figure >>> out all the language features that are necessary for doing array work >>> really well. Making distributed technical computing really productive is >>> also a huge unsolved problem. (This is a very different problem from >>> writing highly concurrent servers, which Clojure and Go are doing a great >>> job of tackling.) Until we've solved these and other problems in the >>> technical computing domain, I think it's premature to lose our focus. >>> >>> It is great that people are writing excellent general purpose packages >>> and applications in Julia, and that definitely needs to continue and >>> increase with our blessing and support. But the core focus of the language >>> has to continue to be on technical computing - until we can honestly say >>> that technical computing is as much of a solved problem as string >>> processing or writing desktop applications. That is still a long way off. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Dave Bettin <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> If anybody is interested, I did find these two comments about Julia and >>>> its part in the general purpose language world: >>>> >>>> 1. http://stackoverflow.com/a/17434967/632756 >>>> 2. http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2014/02/julia/ >>>> ?cid=co18025234#comment-1229330714 >>>> >>>> On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:22:38 AM UTC-8, Dave Bettin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Julia is promoted as a technical computing language. However, there is >>>>> this beautiful general purpose language waiting to be unleashed onto the >>>>> masses. >>>>> >>>>> Why is this aspect of the language not communicated/marketed more? >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, is there currently anyone using Julia outside of the >>>>> technical computing space? >>>>> >>>> >>>
