Yes, but I think that window will rapidly be shutting for Julia. It is becoming a victim of it's own success, so many people are seeing the advantages of Julia, even now, while there are still a few warts (which hopefully will get addressed quickly during ArrayMegeddon in 0.5).
This has already caused some friction even inside of Julia, where the advantages of 0.4 (even in a somewhat unstable state [rapidly being fixed also]), drive people to use it instead of the stable 0.3 release. On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 11:21:41 AM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > Yes. In old languages, there's no longer any hope of fixing the > inconsistencies. > > On Thursday, August 20, 2015, Sisyphuss <zhengw...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> This is the characteristic of a young language, isn't it? >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 6:02:36 PM UTC+2, Matt Bauman wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:29:00 AM UTC-4, Sisyphuss wrote: >>>> >>>> My point is these inconsistent rules are very confusing. The experience >>>> gained in one type cannot be extrapolated to another. >>>> >>> >>> I think most people here will agree with you. The discussion on how to >>> spell conversion and/or construction took 2.5 years and over 100 comments >>> to reach consensus and implement the required code changes to make it >>> happen (see issue #1470). Furthermore, the ability to do this only happened >>> recently, so we're still settling on how to best use these new features. >>> >>> It may be possible to deprecate the lowercase symbol function in favor >>> of Symbol, but that'll cause a decent amount of code churn. `float` is an >>> interesting case as it's regularly used to generically mean: convert to a >>> floating point number *OR* a complex number with floating point components, >>> so that's why it's still here but `int` isn't. >>> >>
