| ▲ | sundarurfriend a day ago | ||||||||||||||||
As your comment already hints at, using Python often ends up a hodgepodge of libraries and tools glued together, that work for their limited scope but show their shaky foundations any time your work is outside of those parts. Having worked with researchers and engineers for years on their codebases, there is already too much "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" temptation in this type of code (because they'd much rather be working on their research than on the code), and the Python way of doing things actively encourages that. Julia's type hierarchies, integrated easy package management, and many elements of its design make writing better code easier and even the smoother path. > I don't think Julia really solves any problems that aren't already solved by Python. I don't really need proper furniture, the cardboard boxes and books setup I had previously "solved" the same problems, but I feel less worried about random parts of it suddenly buckling, and it is much more ergonomic in practice too. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | wolvesechoes 18 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> using Python often ends up a hodgepodge of libraries and tools glued together At least it has those tools and libraries, what cannot be said about Julia. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||