Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjmlp | Hacker News Reader

The negativity is because they were never serious about it.

While C++ might not be the ideal language, choosing one that only works properly in Apple platforms, dismissing the complaints of lack of any solid roadmap in platforms that researchers actually use and hand waving any usability problems to just use notebooks in Google Compute cloud is not how a language gains adoption beyond its initial niche.

View on HN

I don't want to be that guy, but if they were going with a heavy handed language anyway, why not Rust? It has a good multiplatform support and most of the same benefits of Swift.

The article addresses this. Data scientists probably don't want to manage memory.

But that's not what you do in Rust? That's more of a C++ thing. I think you'd be surprised, Rust is much more similar to Swift than you'd think. The biggest layer of complexity is fighting with the borrow checker in some cases, but that only really comes into play when you want to write something concurrent.

I love Rust and I don't know much about data science but from my understanding many data scientists are not hardcore programmers it the same way that many programmers are not necessarily great at sysadmin. It's a tool, but it's not really the core of their job. In particular they mention Python being very popular in these circles.

Switching from garbage collected and dynamically typed to manual memory management + static typing + borrow checker + trait-based generics is going to be a deep dive for these people. Maybe they'd end up better off in the end though, who knows. I personally think that dynamic typing and GCs are overrated and their benefits overstated but that's obviously not the consensus out there.

I guess the core of my argument is that none of these features need to be used. It's very easy to write basic scripts in Rust at least in my experience. Maybe you might encounter difficulty with the borrow checker occasionally, once in a blue moon now that non lexical lifetimes are a thing. Most of the other disadvantages also apply to Swift.

Either way, people will find a way to justify their preference. The people in question liked Swift, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Julia would have been the obvious choice, if Chris Latter wasn't leading the project, most likely.

Probably, yes. My point is if they wanted a general purpose high performance multi-paradigm language like Swift. But in general I think Julia would have been a better choice, so I agree.

Imo, Julia should’ve been the choice; I have never heard a single researcher use Swift for anything other than iOS coding (I certainly never have). But we will see how this plays out, I guess.

Their reasoning: "We love Rust, but it has a steep learning curve that may exclude data scientists and other non-expert programmers who frequently use TensorFlow." [1]

(I can't comment on that because I don't know Rust nor am I a data scientist!)

[1] https://github.com/tensorflow/swift/blob/master/docs/WhySwif...

Yeah it just sounds like a cop out to me, Swift's learning curve is equally steep to Rust in my experience. But as mentioned elsewhere, Julia would probably have been the best fit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com