> Suitable for scientific programming
How's that possible? JS does not have a good reputation in sci prog, why would clio have?
How's that possible? JS does not have a good reputation in sci prog, why would clio have?
There is plenty of ways of making JS handle any "scientific programming" you can throw at it. It'll probably run slower than what you can do by default in python-land or Julia, but since Clio seems to automatically parallize your code, it might have a chance.
What can be claimed though is that any general purpose programming language "can be made to" handle scientific programming. I'm not saying you should, but it's possible for sure.
Libraries like big.js for example make arbitrary-precision decimal arithmetic possible on JS, which many considered impossible to do in JS.
My guess is it's enormous, but I could be wrong since contemporary JS engines do quite well with numeric computing.
But there's a wealth of scientific computing that can't be magically made to be parallel and the parallel equivalents are often slower due to duplicated arithmetic and overhead in setting up the computation (recursive computations are particularly bad about this) - finding a parallel evaluation strategy that is actually faster is nontrivial.
It's really not a safe assumption that parallel = faster.
for example keras is a wrapper for tensorflow (c++). numpy relies on c if i understand this correctly.
The same is true of JS though, and most interpreted languages that have an escape hatch for FFI. The difficulty of getting it to work may vary.