Are there any more informed folks in here that would like to discuss how "having an ISO standard" would improve Julia?
I first heard about Julia in about 2012, and while visibility has grown massively, I haven't seen anyone putting it into production or widespread use in any company or academic group except for where you have someone who wants to be an "influencer" trying their luck.
I keep hearing this meme. My company uses it in production.
Edit: To be clear; when I first heard about Julia I was excited and a bit sad it had come into my awareness a bit too late for me to use in my PhD. However, since then I see it come up more and more, yet the core UX things which were regarded as "not quite as good as python" seem to persist. Some things need to change in order for the language to get over the next hump of acceptance, and I feel like a community who are very hostile to outside opinions is a major one.
You are exemplifying one of the points from my original post quite well though, so thanks, I guess.
For others who might not know you as a co-creator of the language with a strong financial interest in its success, don't you think your comments on Julia ought to carry a disclaimer?
Your group have clearly done fantastic work, but having such centralised (and "vocal") management makes it feel more like Julia is a start-up whose product is a language, rather than a language which a spin-out company is commercialising a bit. I trust the former far less than the latter.
Yes! You can find them all over. https://brainstation.io/career-guides/who-uses-python-today#.... for example. People compile incomplete lists for the answer of "do people use X?" It's never expected that the lists are complete. This is the most bizarre comment thread I've ever read.
> but having such centralised (and "vocal") management makes it feel more like Julia is a start-up whose product is a language, rather than a language which a spin-out company is commercialising a bit
Okay... then just read a different source? There's tons of these things online. Stefan just referenced the one he knows the URL of because he's involved with it. But here's a random one. https://www.datacamp.com/blog/the-rise-of-julia-is-it-worth-.... Each package ecosystem tends to have a list, like SciML has a (very incomplete, probably less than 2% listed here according to analytics) list https://sciml.ai/showcase/. There's lists all over.
I doubt any list you'll get is complete. It's more a list of examples
lol, no.
You have to understand, random commenters in HN have very high standards, not like those amateurs at ASML /s
Isn’t that either ironic or hypocritical? Rejecting something out of hand because too many people like it is just as superficial as embracing something on account of many people liking it.
Either try it and reject it, or ignore it. But Too Trendy is not a good reason.
I know of some large-scale physics simulations that are using Julia, and it’s widely considered the language to use for new projects. It’s what I use now for my physics hobby projects. I’d never heard about its finance-bro associations. And if I had, why would I give a crap?