Comment by pphysch

4 days ago

Deeply ironic for a Julia proponent to smear a popular language as "fundamentally broken" without evidence.

https://yuri.is/not-julia/

6 comments

pphysch

Reply
kelipso  4 days ago

This is like one of those people posting Dijkstra’s letter advocating for 0-based indexing without ever having read or understood what they posted.

  • pphysch  4 days ago

    What does indexing syntax have to do with Julia having a rough history of correctness bugs and footguns?

    • Joel_Mckay  3 days ago

      Sure, all software is terrible if looking at bug frequency history...

      https://github.com/python/cpython/issues

      Griefers ranting about years old _closed_ tickets on v1.0.5 versions on a blog as some sort of proof of lameness... is a poorly structured argument. Julia includes regression testing features built into even its plotting library output, and thus issues usually stay resolved due to pedantic reproducibility. Also, running sanity-checks in any llvm language code is usually wise.

      Best of luck =3

      2 replies →

Joel_Mckay  4 days ago

Python threading and computational errata issues go back a long time. It is a popular integration "glue" language, but is built on SWiG wrappers to work around its many unresolved/unsolvable problems.

Not a "smear", but rather a well known limitation of the language. Perhaps your environment context works differently than mine.

It is bizarre people get emotionally invested in something so trivial and mundane. Julia is at v1.12.2 so YMMV, but Queryverse is a lot of fun =3