5 ms·

I am counting on Julia to remove this language from the fac e of earth. Fun fact, when the creator announced python beta he clearly said it was for building pr

I am counting on Julia to remove this language from the fac e of earth. Fun fact, when the creator announced python beta he clearly said it was for building prototypes

incrudible 4y ago
Nah. You can always count on the scientific community producing tools that software engineers will scoff at. The opposite is not true.
- jakobnissen 4y ago
  Spoken with the arrogance of a true software engineer. It's common in science to see computer scientists implement domain-specific software with a hopelessly naive understanding of the domain, leading to biased, wrong, or misinterpreted results. Like, go to any bioinformatics conference and you will find these people. "What do you mean I can't just use a database of clinical pathogens to make a tool that generalises to all bacteria?"
  - incrudible 4y ago
    It is also common in science to solve problems by producing unmaintainable write-only code and managing dependencies by bundling up the entire universe into one enormous distribution. This approach works for science, not for software engineering in general. Hence, we do not adopt it. The problem of a lack of understanding of the domain exists in all domains, but many scientists are particularly inept at expressing their precious ideas in terms that an ordinary person could hope to comprehend.
  - hnaccount_rng 4y ago
    Mh, I read the parent's post as: "You can count on science producing things that software engineers will complain about (and therefore use). But it's rare for science to use stuff produced by software engineers at all, and hence there's no complaint that way"
  - ghostwriter 4y ago
    > It's common in science to see computer scientists implement domain-specific software with a hopelessly naive understanding of the domain, leading to biased, wrong, or misinterpreted results. Another thing that is common in science is scientists that do not know generic college-grade maths, which lays way before domain specialization: https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1xfa8p/medical_paper_claiming_to_have_invented_a_way_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1xfa8p/medical_paper_...
scintill76 4y ago
I've no love lost for Python, but in regards to what Python's creator may have said at the beginning, I'm reminded of the Linux announcement -- "just a hobby, won't be big and professional" and "NOT portable", "probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks."
anakaine 4y ago
Julia sounds wonderful on paper, but as soon as I want to work with the sorts of data that is my bread and butter, the ecosystem in Julia is empty, whilst Python is fully featured. Hard sell without huge investment.
- snovv_crash 4y ago
  Which field is this? I find for my field it's really full featured, the part that is missing is the production-level stability and deployment process.

I am counting on Julia to remove this language from the fac e of earth. Fun fact, when the creator announced python beta he clearly said it was for building prototypes

incrudible 4y ago

Nah. You can always count on the scientific community producing tools that software engineers will scoff at. The opposite is not true.

jakobnissen 4y ago
Spoken with the arrogance of a true software engineer. It's common in science to see computer scientists implement domain-specific software with a hopelessly naive understanding of the domain, leading to biased, wrong, or misinterpreted results. Like, go to any bioinformatics conference and you will find these people. "What do you mean I can't just use a database of clinical pathogens to make a tool that generalises to all bacteria?"
- incrudible 4y ago
  It is also common in science to solve problems by producing unmaintainable write-only code and managing dependencies by bundling up the entire universe into one enormous distribution. This approach works for science, not for software engineering in general. Hence, we do not adopt it. The problem of a lack of understanding of the domain exists in all domains, but many scientists are particularly inept at expressing their precious ideas in terms that an ordinary person could hope to comprehend.
- hnaccount_rng 4y ago
  Mh, I read the parent's post as: "You can count on science producing things that software engineers will complain about (and therefore use). But it's rare for science to use stuff produced by software engineers at all, and hence there's no complaint that way"
- ghostwriter 4y ago
  > It's common in science to see computer scientists implement domain-specific software with a hopelessly naive understanding of the domain, leading to biased, wrong, or misinterpreted results. Another thing that is common in science is scientists that do not know generic college-grade maths, which lays way before domain specialization: https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1xfa8p/medical_paper_claiming_to_have_invented_a_way_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1xfa8p/medical_paper_...

scintill76 4y ago

I've no love lost for Python, but in regards to what Python's creator may have said at the beginning, I'm reminded of the Linux announcement -- "just a hobby, won't be big and professional" and "NOT portable", "probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks."

anakaine 4y ago

Julia sounds wonderful on paper, but as soon as I want to work with the sorts of data that is my bread and butter, the ecosystem in Julia is empty, whilst Python is fully featured. Hard sell without huge investment.

snovv_crash 4y ago
Which field is this? I find for my field it's really full featured, the part that is missing is the production-level stability and deployment process.