On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:02:24 PM UTC-4, Tony Kelman wrote: > > Many factors, and many of the complaints apply equally to Javascript or > any other dynamically typed language. Julia talks more about types than > most other dynamic languages, but many things are still not statically > checked and can lead to runtime-only errors. The problem boils down to > whether or not a compiler is verifying invariants, interfaces, types, and > safety in your code ahead of time. It's a common justification for using > languages like Ada, Rust, Haskell, Scala, etc. Julia may be more amenable > to offline static analysis than many other dynamic languages, but this > really isn't the design space that's being targeted here, and tooling for > this remains immature. >
Well, I think with a few more tweaks, julia will fall right into a sweet spot of rapid application development while still completely capable of being used for large scale *reliable* and long-term application development, even for the "mission critical" sorts of applications that I'm used to, where reliablility, scalability, and performance are all necessary. So far, I haven't seen another language with quite the "bones" that Julia has, even if everything is not totally fleshed out quite yet. You've quoted that phrase multiple times since May, sorry I deliberately > chose not to read that disaster of a many-pages-long mailing list thread so > was unaware it was first written by someone else. I'd chastise him too and > recommend a different choice of words. The "consenting adults" phrasing > should probably be retired as well, given the growth and standards that > we'd like to maintain as a community. > I think I only used it on-line about three times (and a few more times over beers during JuliaCon!) but I will desist, and I even found "private" parts comments going back to 2014 on GitHub, long before I even knew Julia existed.
