
Not only for technical computing: changing the narrative around Julia - byt143
https://discourse.julialang.org/t/not-only-for-technical-computing-changing-the-narrative-around-the-usecase-for-julia/19784
======
choeger
But it has no (sound, complete) static typing!

Tbh, u think we kind of see a new generation here:

* Rust improved over C++ and C

* Julia improved over python

But if you take a closer look you see that neither actually approach the
radical completeness of their actual competitors:

* Julia does not fully embrace its lisp heritage (I was told the developers where old lispers)

* Rust does not fully embrace Haskell's type discipline

So what do you think, is there enough room between rust and Haskell and Julia
and lisp for yet another iteration?

~~~
jjnoakes
For the uneducated among us who are considering learning Julia (and who have
decent type system knowledge), where does Julia fall short for static type
enthusiasts?

~~~
choeger
Julia checks types dynamically. It's type system depends on the evaluation
first. So any errors are catched eventually, but not on your desk.

~~~
ninjaaron
This is only partially true. Almost all types are known at compile time
because Julia was designed with static evaluation in mind. Many type errors
are caught at compile time.

