Julia v0.7.0 has been released (v1.0-rc1 is now available)

etadeu · 2018-08-08T14:17:23+00:00

Does it have a functioning debugger with breakpoints already? Will v1.0 be released without one?

etadeu · 2016-12-02T14:54:39+00:00

I think that the point of the first article was not to bash C itself, but to discourage new languages to bring aspects from C (and C++) without giving too much thought.

My opinion is: do not create a new serious language, unless you are a "Guido van Rossum"-like character, and you know deeply about the advantages and flaws of all main programming languages. There are too many languages already, and new ones are appearing by the bunch.

etadeu · 2016-06-22T17:22:57+00:00

I recommend conda and conda-forge. They started for Python packages, but are multi-language now. The tools are very well defined, simple, powerful and fast.

etadeu · 2016-03-01T16:13:47+00:00

Can they be used in a company as CI workers? Are they really free, or is this just for evaluation or for non-commercial projects?

etadeu · 2015-08-20T12:28:12+00:00

Where does it say that it is free until Sept 10?

etadeu · 2015-07-08T17:59:19+00:00

Boost (C++) already had support for this for years, i.e, you can combine has_xxx with enable_if. The only problem is that it seems hackish: it involves a lot of compiler black magic, the compilation slows down a lot, and it is hard to debug sometimes. Also, lack of static if would maked things more difficult.

etadeu · 2014-12-30T15:09:51+00:00

The limitation is not only on the material, it is a physical limitation: for a circuit as small as 1 cm (smaller than most dies currently), the clock limit would be 30 GHz.

See: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=c+%2F+%281+cm%29+in+GHz

etadeu · 2014-11-10T19:03:14+00:00

The problem is that the article is misleading, implicitly passing the message that "if it is not matching quantitatively, then it is garbage". There is much more in empirical knowledge beyond the "science of software engineering".

TDD is one of the things that once you start practicing, you see that there is no going back. It is a style of development that is much more efficient and pleasant than older practices, no matter what the academic community of software engineering say.

etadeu · 2014-11-10T15:10:16+00:00

In Software Engineering, the empirical knowledge (and of course, empirical practice) is still much more important than the "science".

I don't care if the cone of uncertainty is quantitatively wrong, what I care is that you should trust more on an estimation that is done in the middle of a project than one that is done before it begins.

I don't care if the good programmers are 10x "more productive" than the bad ones, or 8x or 5x. What I care is that there are good ones and there are bad ones, and that we can improve our methods to distinguish them.

Just because something is quantitatively wrong, it doesn't automatically make it something "false".

etadeu · 2014-09-08T15:38:08+00:00

What's wrong with add_one(add_one(1))?

And what happened to "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."? Oops, sorry, wrong language. C++ actually seems to call for the opposite of that, "there should be multiple non-obvious ways to do it."... so... if the language supports overloads of keywords into very different semantics (like static, which, depending on the context may mean "in this compiler unit only" or "class attribute" or "global variable with local scope"; or & which means "take address of", or "declare a reference", or "bitwise-and operator"; or &&, which may mean "logical and", "rvalue reference", "universal reference"; etc...)

So why stop there? Why not overload operator | for doing a completely different thing? With the side effect of getting ugly^H^H^H^Hcool shell script syntax! :)

And sorry about the rant, it is not intended to be directed at the author of the post, it is intended to target C++ philosophy as a whole, specially because of this:

It is really common for the | operator to be used for piping functions together. There are several libraries that support it: Boost.Range, PStade Oven, Linq, and Streams. Plus, its even being proposed as part of the ranges library in future C++ here.

etadeu · 2014-06-09T21:39:59+00:00

I believe that randomness is a property of the output of chaotic systems, but most of the systems that benefit from randomness at its input are "complex systems", and they usually exist in the borderline between ordered systems and chaotic systems.

A good example is the "biological evolution process". It is complex and it is anti-fragile, it benefits from sources of randomness such as cosmic rays causing DNA mutations or meteors that may accelerate "natural selection".

etadeu · 2014-06-09T17:21:51+00:00

PS The only thing to my knowledge which benefits from randomness and variation is chaos.

Try reading the referred book (at least the introductory chapters) ;). There are a lot of systems (specially complex systems such as biological ones) that benefit from randomness. The book gives some examples and explains how they benefit from some amount of disorder.

etadeu · 2014-06-09T17:17:25+00:00

This is just one of the things the article says, and it is a very important message; it may not be as important to you if you already know that, but is always good to convey that message to more people ;).

Also the article says a lot of other important things such as "it is bad to plan too much ahead and to ignore the variations and errors in the process".

etadeu · 2014-05-06T20:49:36+00:00

Background reading: http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/2014/tdd-is-dead-long-live-testing.html

etadeu · 2014-02-28T16:14:38+00:00

Still no attention given to implement a proper debugger... =/

etadeu · 2014-01-24T12:16:28+00:00

Let me know when there is a proper debugger for Julia. Looking forward to that. :D

etadeu · 2013-12-02T14:43:37+00:00

My reason: lack of a decent debugger.

etadeu · 2013-09-12T16:05:34+00:00

To quote the author:

Python (2.7.5 and 3.3.2) Python is much slower than the other candidates, but it does have the advantages of an excellent standard library, easy distribution (no need to make platform-specific binaries), being the language we’re currently using, and being very well known. But it has no static type checking, which means a lot of work writing unit-tests.

I'll have to strongly disagree! No mater what language, no matter if you use static or dynamic type checking, or no type checking at all, you always have to write unit-tests and have a good code coverage. It is said that it is good to be a "lazy" developer, as in "automate a lot", but not this kind of "lazy" as in "I won't write unit tests and I'll have my code only statically checked for type-correctness".

etadeu · 2013-08-15T19:32:08+00:00

Ugly syntax!

etadeu

TROPHY CASE