Oh, and an IDE is the other requirement of my hard core programming brethren. The debugger is higher on their list of priorities, but the IDE is also vital (and one capable of handling projects, etc. we do large scale numerical projects).
David. On Thursday, 5 March 2015 14:35:23 UTC+1, David Higgins wrote: > > I agree with many of the comments above. I recommend Julia only to a > subset of my colleagues. From Matlab the barrier to entry is incredibly low > and you gain on both speed and price, the only argument against is that > Matlab users tend to have years of experience in their one language and not > such a habit of learning new languages. > > I personally moved from mainly GPGPU based programming using C; despite > the difficulty of that field I found the move painful due to a lack of > detailed documentation (my perception). Don't get me wrong, there's enough > documentation out there to make a decent stab at getting things done. But > I'm used to having a much more nuanced understanding of a language and the > documentation doesn't yet go into this level of detail, nor are there > sufficient examples out there. > > For my colleagues who are strong programmers (Python particularly), they > refuse to touch the language until there's a debugger. At the very least > they want to be able to set breakpoints and run to them. Personally, I'd > also like a REPL command which prints out a list of all of the objects > currently in memory space (like 'whos' in Octave). This seems like a basic > requirement for REPL based numerical programming. > > Julia is elegant and growing strongly, but I'm still quite selective about > who I proselytise to. I have the feeling that it will be so many times a > more comfortable experience in 6-12 months time that I'd rather not colour > people's early experiences in a negative light if better is soon to come. > > David. >
