On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 3:14:22 AM UTC-4, Viral Shah wrote:
Hi everyone,
Some more details on NumFocus. When we joined NumFocus, Stefan joined
their board. In addition, 5 people represent the Julia project in the
NumFocus Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement - Tim Holy, Steve Johnson, John
Hello colleague,
On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:24:49 AM UTC+2, Andrew Gibb wrote:
I'd like to create an interactive tool which draws a circle over an image.
Sliders will enable the radius and centre position of the circle to be set.
The following code works, but is very slow:
using
I'd say that manual memory management is usually going to be faster than GC
unless you have really bad manual management and a very good GC. The best a
good GC can hope for is to be close to manual management. That's one of the
reasons the majority of systems software is still in C/C++ (memory
On Friday, May 15, 2015 04:59:26 AM Jameson Nash wrote:
I am one of the more recent people to join Julia Computing, so that I am
now able to work full-time on Julia. It's been a great way to merge a
mutual hobby – of contributing to the open-source Julia project – with
day-to-day
Hi everyone,
Some more details on NumFocus. When we joined NumFocus, Stefan joined their
board. In addition, 5 people represent the Julia project in the NumFocus
Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement - Tim Holy, Steve Johnson, John Myles White,
Jeff, and myself. This will be the group that manages the
On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 3:13:09 PM UTC-4, Toivo Henningsson wrote:
I don't think it should be allowed. What if two packages try to add
functions with the same name to Base that do completely different things?
And what if they are both applicable to some of the same argument types?
Do I need to be worried? My guess is 0.4 might be faster and maybe already
be faster in all the cases below (do you know?):
From:
http://julialang.org/
mandel:
Julia 0.87
Lua 0.71
Java 0.68
[Interesting that all beat C (I guess C *could* match all languages..).]
fib (doubly recursive)
Julia
Le jeudi 14 mai 2015 22:31:03 UTC+2, Steven G. Johnson a écrit :
On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 3:46:25 PM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Steven G. Johnson steve...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think the right thing would be for log(b,x) to first promote its
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
Hello colleague,
On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 12:08:10 PM UTC+2, Páll Haraldsson wrote:
Do I need to be worried? My guess is 0.4 might be faster and maybe already
be faster in all the cases below (do you know?):
i'm allowed to write that, because i already did my share in benchmarking
On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 5:52:30 AM UTC-4, Scott Jones wrote:
I second that, congratulations Jameson! (all of this really helps me sell
Julia to clients ;-) )
Oops, that sounded bad! I am *not* selling in the sense of charging money
for Julia! (even though I think the MIT license would
To answer my own question, I think Rust might be it (for manual memory
management/secure):
http://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/04/03/Rust-1.0-beta.html
The final Rust 1.0 release is scheduled for May 15th - today.
There probably will not be any official complementary language. I'm aware
of PyCall
On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 8:08:51 PM UTC+10, Scott Jones wrote:
On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 3:13:09 PM UTC-4, Toivo Henningsson wrote:
I don't think it should be allowed. What if two packages try to add
functions with the same name to Base that do completely different things?
And
This is going off topic (which was my fault initially ) so lets take this
to the other thread
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/julia-users/sk8Gxq7ws3w%5B101-125%5D
I agree that Haskell typeclasses may well be a long term interesting
solution, does anybody know if there is a plan for
I second that, congratulations Jameson! (all of this really helps me sell
Julia to clients ;-) )
On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 5:41:56 AM UTC-4, Tim Holy wrote:
On Friday, May 15, 2015 04:59:26 AM Jameson Nash wrote:
I am one of the more recent people to join Julia Computing, so that I am
I was going to look up pipe. In 0.3 it can't be found (I guess | can). I
used to be able to go to 0.4 (a thingy in the down-left corner, that is now
missing).
I'm not saying pipe, etc. should be in 0.3 docs (or maybe 0.4 things
clearly marked?), but shouldn't Compat.jl be there:
That's the pointer I was looking for - I will take a look, thanks!
On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 9:04:37 AM UTC-4, Isaiah wrote:
Have you seen StrPack?
https://github.com/pao/StrPack.jl
It has some very nice tools (and tricks) for de/serializing binary data.
fixed sized char arrays
On 0.3
Is there a better way than a long list of
sid = reinterpret( Clong, bytes[16:20])
the data structure could in theory be represented by a structure but it has
embedded null bytes and fixed sized char arrays. The docs seem to indicate
that these are not well supported.
Ideally I'd like to be
Topics on the Julia mailing lists should generally be concrete and focused.
Questions about actual Julia usage are always welcomed, but there are many
other, more suitable venues on the internet for open-ended/speculative
discussion (e.g. Reddit/proggit).
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Páll
What's the current suggestion for this? I'm sending in an revised article
using Julia in the next few days.
Thanks,
Ron
I've also noticed this. Let's say a = 1, ix = [1]. So a[ix] gives an
error while a[1] and a[a] do not give errors. In Matlab, there is no
difference between the type of a and ix, while in other languages there
is.In Matlab a([1]) doesn't produce an error, while in Julia a[[1]]
does.
I'm
http://julialang.org/publications/ lists some publications, and even has a
BibTeX file. I guess that Jeff Bezanson's PhD thesis will get added there
soon.
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:24 PM, ron.s.r...@gmail.com wrote:
What's the current suggestion for this? I'm sending in an revised article
The first paper out there, Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing”, is
a preferred citation if you just want to cite using Julia in your paper. There
are other specific papers as well. Also, it has been sent to SIAM Review, and
we are hopeful that it will get published.
-viral
On
Hi,
I have never been a huge fan of Microsoft, but I have to admit that with
Nadella at the helm, it does seem like an entirely new company doing some
pretty amazing and innovative things. Windows 10, Surface Pro 3 and Azure
are quickly making a lot of the things we're doing in my FinTech
Hmmm I'd worry that throwing an army of developers at Julia would only
slow things down... (go find Frederick Brooks' The Mythical Man Month,
great reading!).
Julia has a very strong core of geniuses... plus the help of legions of
unpaid volunteers who fight to get their contributions into
My mistake for continuing to use the term ambiguous. Julia eats
ambiguity for breakfast, choosing the most specific method from those
defined *for the same function*.
The problem is not ambiguity, it is that merging unrelated functions
automatically can silently change the behaviour of user
For a concrete example, the export of the `find` method in LibExpat.jl was
recently noted to conflict with the export of `Base.find`. Even though
there would have been no ambiguity to merging the definitions, the
consensus was that they should not be merged since the definition of the
function in
On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 9:36:01 PM UTC-4, ele...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 6:58:18 AM UTC+10, Scott Jones wrote:
About functions that actually take the same types (which means they are
operating on types they they didn't define themselves), I think the new
On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 6:58:18 AM UTC+10, Scott Jones wrote:
About functions that actually take the same types (which means they are
operating on types they they didn't define themselves), I think the new
approach in 0.4 (give a warning and don't merge in the new meaning) is
Very cool!
On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 4:39:40 PM UTC-4, Jeff Waller wrote:
This version supports 0.4.x using svec as well as previous 0.4.x and of
course
0.3.x as well here's the docs http://node-julia.readme.io/ if
interested.
It's been a pretty long time + the svec change was breaking,
This is both a proposal and a call for interested undergraduate and
graduate students:
Automatic differentiation is a technique for computing exact numerical
derivatives of user-provided code, as opposed to using finite difference
approximations which introduce approximation errors. These
Also, the JSOC is open to anyone willing to commit three months to a project,
although preference will be given to students.
-viral
On 15-May-2015, at 11:43 pm, Stefan Karpinski ste...@karpinski.org wrote:
Sorry, this is so late in the game – we were caught off guard by unexpectedly
being
Any chance Julia Computing is working with any government agencies? I work
for a federal agency and am making a pitch to make Julia available as an
alternative to SAS and Stata. I've been given permission to use Julia for a
current project with the expectation that I put together a business
Sorry, this is so late in the game – we were caught off guard by
unexpectedly being rejected as a GSoC project after such a successful GSoC
summer last year. Compensation is similar to GSoC and the projects should
be similar in scope and nature. If you have a project you'd like to
propose, write
Folks,
The Moore Foundation is generously funding us to allow for 6-8 Julia Summer
of Code projects. Details will be published soon, but if you are
interested, please mark your calendars and plan your projects.
-viral
I'd also bring up another metric... which is also very important... how
many lines of (readable documented!) code does it take to do something?
How long does it take somebody to produce that code?
(a language might be very powerful and terse, but really difficult to
write, debug, or understand
Are there any details on how this could have happened? Seems pretty odd to
me, when looking at what projects have been accepted.
Am Freitag, 15. Mai 2015 19:57:24 UTC+2 schrieb Viral Shah:
Folks,
The Moore Foundation is generously funding us to allow for 6-8 Julia
Summer of Code projects.
This version supports 0.4.x using svec as well as previous 0.4.x and of
course
0.3.x as well here's the docs http://node-julia.readme.io/ if interested.
It's been a pretty long time + the svec change was breaking, so not all of
the
feature requests made it in to this, like the cool one
About functions that actually take the same types (which means they are
operating on types they they didn't define themselves), I think the new
approach in 0.4 (give a warning and don't merge in the new meaning) is
correct.
I would not like to see that change to have the ambiguity only resolved
On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 4:39:33 PM UTC, Kuba Roth wrote:
Awesome answer!
You answer is awesome too.
I too agree bringing up these numbers have little sense, at least form the
perspective of solving real world problems. Julia has much more to offer
then raw speed.
So if i were
Awesome answer! I too agree bringing up these numbers have little sense, at
least form the perspective of solving real world problems. Julia has much
more to offer then raw speed.
So if i were worried about the performance I probably would focus on advocating
better support for shared memory
When i do:
M=rand(5,5)
a=M[:,1]' * M[:,1]
if a0
println(Less than 0)
else
println(more)
end
I have an error: isless has no method matching isless(::Array{Float64,2},
::Int 32) in at operators.jl:32
Can anyone tell me please how to do this? Thank you
Is there a command in julia that enables us to see/show the implementation
of a module or a function in julia?
If yes, which command?
Can we modify the code of an existing module/function?
Someone know how to convert an array{Float64,1} in a Float64?
Thank you
Well I think the problem here is that though M[:,1]' * M[:,1] has only 1
value, it's still a (1x1) matrix, and not a scalar.
What happens when you change to this?
a=(M[:,1]' * M[:,1])[1]
related. is automatically converting a 1x1 matrix to a scalar or defining
comparison between 1x1 matrices
You'll have to clarify what you're looking for; it's not really clear from
your brief description. Perhaps sharing the code you're working with would
be easier?
-Jacob
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Lytu lyans...@gmail.com wrote:
Someone know how to convert an array{Float64,1} in a Float64?
46 matches
Mail list logo
