Maybe I'm missing something because I only skimmed it quickly, but this seems like a ridiculous premise for an article. It seems to be partially based on the TIOBE Index, which has a headline of...
Maybe I'm missing something because I only skimmed it quickly, but this seems like a ridiculous premise for an article.
It seems to be partially based on the TIOBE Index, which has a headline of "Python is approaching the top 3 for the first time", focusing on how fast Python is still growing. Julia barely squeaked in at #50 and the ratings are Python: 6.992% vs. Julia: 0.156%. Julia has 2% of Python's rating and is lower than a bunch of languages I've never even heard of. How do you take that and use it to come to the conclusion that Julia is some sort of rival?
The other source (RedMonk language rankings) doesn't support it either - Python is #3 and Julia is #36, and the page even expresses doubt about Julia's popularity:
It’s certainly not on a Kotlin or Swift path, and the esoteric nature of the language may yet relegate it to niche status, but its steady performance has put it back on the map as one to watch.
I've been using Nim for a while now. I can see that being a Python contender. Compiled language; compiles to C, so really fast. Static type check Indentation based syntax similar to Python...
I've been using Nim for a while now. I can see that being a Python contender.
I know people make fun of this language because its arrays are indexed to 1, but that with the fact that its community is still very young and small are the only drawbacks I hear about when people...
I know people make fun of this language because its arrays are indexed to 1, but that with the fact that its community is still very young and small are the only drawbacks I hear about when people are talking about Julia.
It may seem weird but it's always been convention to start arrays (basically just a list of values) at 0, mainly because of it's relationship with the hardware implementation ('A' can be stored at...
It may seem weird but it's always been convention to start arrays (basically just a list of values) at 0, mainly because of it's relationship with the hardware implementation ('A' can be stored at 000, 'B' stored at 001, 'C' stored at 010...). Another way to think of it is like, on Sunday, zero days of the week have gone by, on Monday, one day will have gone by, and so on. If you work with that mindset for long enough you get an intuition for it, I feel like changing the convention to starting at 1 serves no purpose other then to further obfuscate what goes on behind the curtain, and confuse experienced programmers
Right under the headline of the article: "A young programming language for machine leaning is on the rise and could be soon gunning for Python." The article is specific the the field.
Right under the headline of the article:
"A young programming language for machine leaning is on the rise and could be soon gunning for Python."
The rest of the article, however, is pretty contradictory and fluffy.
The rest of the article, however, is pretty contradictory and fluffy.
... goal Julia's four makers outlined when they unveiled it in 2012: to create a perfect language that suited their tasks in scientific computing, machine learning, data mining, large-scale linear algebra, distributed and parallel computing
We want something as usable for general programming as Python, as easy for statistics as R, as natural for string processing as Perl, as powerful for linear algebra as Matlab, as good at gluing programs together as the shell. Something that is dirt simple to learn, yet keeps the most serious hackers happy. We want it interactive and we want it compiled.
Maybe I'm missing something because I only skimmed it quickly, but this seems like a ridiculous premise for an article.
It seems to be partially based on the TIOBE Index, which has a headline of "Python is approaching the top 3 for the first time", focusing on how fast Python is still growing. Julia barely squeaked in at #50 and the ratings are Python: 6.992% vs. Julia: 0.156%. Julia has 2% of Python's rating and is lower than a bunch of languages I've never even heard of. How do you take that and use it to come to the conclusion that Julia is some sort of rival?
The other source (RedMonk language rankings) doesn't support it either - Python is #3 and Julia is #36, and the page even expresses doubt about Julia's popularity:
I've been using Nim for a while now. I can see that being a Python contender.
I know people make fun of this language because its arrays are indexed to 1, but that with the fact that its community is still very young and small are the only drawbacks I hear about when people are talking about Julia.
What is the significance of the arrays being indexed to 1?
It may seem weird but it's always been convention to start arrays (basically just a list of values) at 0, mainly because of it's relationship with the hardware implementation ('A' can be stored at 000, 'B' stored at 001, 'C' stored at 010...). Another way to think of it is like, on Sunday, zero days of the week have gone by, on Monday, one day will have gone by, and so on. If you work with that mindset for long enough you get an intuition for it, I feel like changing the convention to starting at 1 serves no purpose other then to further obfuscate what goes on behind the curtain, and confuse experienced programmers
Thanks.
Isn't Julia meant for use in scientific computing? If so, how is it a Python rival? Python's use is much more general than that.
Right under the headline of the article:
"A young programming language for machine leaning is on the rise and could be soon gunning for Python."
The article is specific the the field.
The rest of the article, however, is pretty contradictory and fluffy.