On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:46:54 PM UTC+1, Jacob Quinn wrote:
>
> function frob(x::Array)
> isleaftype(eltype(x)) || error("Homogeneous array required')?
>
> Though, IMO, this is all a non-issue in my experience. Just specifying
> frob{T<:Real}(x::Vector{T}) gets you exactly what you want--the ability to
> have JIT generate fast, efficient code for a range of types that the user
> can specify. The fact that this has never come up before or in any package
> implementations, to me, indicates that this issue if more of getting used
> to idiomatic Julia and spending some time playing with parametric types and
> the interactions with the type hierarchy.
>
I come from a non-technical background and at first, the idea of parametric
> functions/types was a little wild and hard to wrap my head around, but
> after reading through the manual several times (which has a lot of great
> stuff!) and developing my own non-trivial codebase (Datetime.jl), I feel
> I'm comfortable with use cases and how they work in general. I think if you
> spend some more time developing code, poking around popular packages and
> Base, you'll come to find that there isn't really anything broken here
> (though quite possibly some things that need cleaned up a little).
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Jacob
>
>
I have started developing my own non-trivial code base, which is what
prompted me to start this thread. I also have a technical background.
You don't care whether someone uses homogeneous or heterogeneous arrays.
Maybe you think it's their problem if they make things slow. I want to make
them aware of it. On that we differ.
What I find absurd is that, rather than accept that different position,
based on the explanation I have given (to make things fast), or make a
point which invalidates my argument, you attempt to explain away this need
by the fact that I am new to the language and that I'm simply not used to
it.
You have taken a very concrete point that I make, and attempted to dismiss
it with the suggestion that I simply don't know what I'm talking about. Not
at all constructive.
