Comment by hatmatrix

Comment by hatmatrix 15 hours ago

Lispers might not like that it's not a Lisp, but I remember Luke Tierney also making a statement to the effect that the statisticians have spoken and they don't prefer the Lisp syntax.

So Julia is a happy middle ground - MATLAB-like syntax with metaprogramming facilities (i.e., macros, access to ASTs). Its canonical implementation is JIT, but the community is working on allowing creation of medium-sized binaries (there has been much effort to reduce this footprint).

eigenspace 13 hours ago

Julia isn't a lisp, but I think it's the most lispy non-S-expression based language around these days. The language creators took the lessons from lisp very seriously, and it shares a lot of functionality and philosophy with lisps.

Reply View 2 replies

hatmatrix 13 hours ago

Well I think the original author was a fan of Lisp and implemented the first Julia parser in femtolisp, IIRC. (And femtolisp was a lightweight Lisp of his own.)

Reply View | 1 reply
- Joel_Mckay 8 hours ago
  
  Julia is somewhat different:
  1. readability with explicit broadcast operators
  2. interoperability with other languages including R and Python
  3. performance often exceeding numpy and C/C++ code
  4. usability in numerous workflows:
  https://www.queryverse.org/
  The idea of using Lisp or Prolog in a production environment doesn't sound fun at all. Yet, they do make some types of problems easier to handle. =3
  
  Reply View | 0 replies