mkborregaard

7 ms·

1.
by mkborregaard 6y ago
Miles Guo is also part of Trump's Mar-el-Lago resort
2.
by mkborregaard 6y ago
Even though you can do `@which naked_function` it's a fair position to have that you prefer to import modules and be explicit about where they come from. I tend to prefer explicitness like that in package code, but for data analytical
3.
by mkborregaard 7y ago
It's funny because it is true
4.
by mkborregaard 7y ago
Program structure by text formatting is a misfeature, though. What you do need though to make sure code remains readable is strong convention. I think actually that's the most unique feature of Julia (as also alluded to in the post) -
5.
by mkborregaard 7y ago
Learning a lot from this thread, seems really usfeul
6.
by mkborregaard 8y ago
Another compelling argument is that {} , while very easy to type on an English keyboard, is highly awkward on keyboards of almost any other language in the world. E.g. I'm Danish and on my Mac { involves flexing the right thumb down to
7.
by mkborregaard 8y ago
That is in fact how an argument becomes an argument from authority. Also, it has become an HN meme to post the Dijkstra comment every single time there's a post mentioning Julia. It's not like it's news to anyone.
8.
by mkborregaard 8y ago
In fact, almost every solid julia package uses arbitrary indexing for input arrays. `for i = 1:length(x)` is discouraged in production code, instead the ideom is `for i in eachindex(x)`.
9.
by mkborregaard 8y ago
Some algorithms work better with 0-based indexing. But maybe, just maybe, there are other aspects to look at when evaluating a programming language than "it doesn't by default follow my favourite indexing type". Especially gi
10.
by mkborregaard 8y ago
An important thing that many people fail to realise is that Julia-1.0 came as a surprise to package authors as well, and thus the first month of the the release has been a scramble to get everything working on 1.0. Unfortunately the pre-1.0
11.
by mkborregaard 8y ago
To be exact, the only thing sold there is hash, though the article insists on using the blanket term "drugs". The reason it's sold there is that the commune has decided that it's unfair to label hash as a drug (unless ni
12.
by mkborregaard 9y ago
The blog posts highlights this as something planned. It does sort of work already, but not completely.
13.
by mkborregaard 9y ago
Just a response for a few comments, since you talk with confidence but could maybe do with a closer look: 1. You end with `end` in julia. 2. You can use indexing with any base, not just 1 - no performance penalty. 3. The julia repl comes wi
14.
by mkborregaard 9y ago
The `length(linearindices)` and no `size` etc are for a short transitory period while packages are ported to the indexing-based-non-reliant framework.
15.
by mkborregaard 9y ago
One of the most mindboggling thing about the recurrent 0- vs 1-based indexing discussion is how incredibly rarely that difference is ever used programmatically in Julia. Most of the large julia packages are programmed in a way that doesn&#x
16.
by mkborregaard 9y ago
What makes you say it lacks critical mass? I don't think that's accurate, but of course it takes time. Implementation time is important, yes - but julia is not just a fast-to-run-language, which is essentially the point - it is a
17.
by mkborregaard 9y ago
Julia supports indexing with arbitrary bases, and it generally works ecosystem-wide.