On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 2:35:09 PM UTC, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > I've seen a few proprietary code bases that are 2-3x that big, which is > not huge, but pretty substantial. I suspect that not many Julia code bases > have had time to grow much larger than that. I think that this is large > enough to be confident that nothing horrible happens when the code base > gets larger – it's just as manageable as it is in Ruby or Python. The main > issue is startup time when loading all your modules (which Jameson is > working on addressing for 0.4). >
Now, 70-105k lines, is fairly substantial for most project and since Julia handles that I'm not worried about any size (million+).. "just as manageable as it is in Ruby or Python", I'm not sure if that is a high bar (or low). I see pros and cons mentioned for Python non-typedness.. vs. static. I assume/hope Typecheck.jl etc. allows Julia to be just as good as C++, etc. Startup time, could actually be a problem even far small stuff.. (etc. web-use, if don incorrectly only(?)) I may look into what Jameson is doing. I'm not sure you can lazily load/compile modules. Do I need to be worried anyway ? I haven't looked into building a standalone "executable <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executable> that doesn't require any julia source code". Is it working for sure? And should eliminate startup time. Then your're ok (or with Julia-to-C). Now, it seems to be black magic that you can actually do that.. I thought eval/macros where a problem to get rid of source code..
