On Mon, Dec 14 2015, Scott Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 4:13:11 AM UTC-5, Tamas Papp wrote: >> >> Assuming that the comparative advantage of Julia is in scientific >> programming, do people really run these on such very low-powered >> hardware? >> > > Well, I'd dispute that assumption. Although there are a number of things > that can be improved in Julia to make it a *better* general-purpose > language, and some holes like decent debugging support filled, it *already* > is better than most languages in a number of ways. > If it can be pared down to essentials, it will be a great language for > programming things like the Pi, even with the current ARM chips. > > The idea that Julia should *only* be focused on scientific computing is > rather aggravating to those of us using it for general purpose programming. > At least the press release for the Moore Foundation's grant said: > "The Julia Language <http://julialang.org./> project’s mission is to create > a free and open-source language that is *general purpose* but designed to > excel at numerical computing and data science." > (Emphasis is my own).
Apologies if I caused you aggravation, that was not my intention. I did not mean to frame the question as "why Julia on architecture <X>", but as "why <X> for running Julia". Best, Tamas
