I was just trying to share some of my own experience with Julia from having
used it for the last two years, not be dismissive or condescending. That
this hasn't been a show-stopper for some 300+ packages now, IMO, *is* a
valid point against making a somewhat disruptive change to the type system.

By stating that I come from a *non*-technical background, I was also trying
to qualify that you may feel free to dismiss my argument because I may well
be talking nonsense :).

-Jacob


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Oliver Woodford <[email protected]
> wrote:

> 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.
>
>

Reply via email to