filter VS julia

Here’s Rob Pike’s (one of the original Go designers) attempt to “see what the hubbub is all about”: https://github.com/robpike/filter

I find the language really solid but asking on r/golang is quite an adventure. It's extremely distant from go's spirit, the grammar is even more rich than Rust. Typical example: let, run, with, apply, and also - they all practically do the same but with a different scope of this and return value. Just looking at the flow API can get your head spinning. To illustrate how much it's completely the opposite of Go, see how Rob Pike pokes fun at map/filter and tells people they should not use it . I guess you can't force all developers to adhere to this mental model, but that's about it, but that's about it, technical arguments are irrelevant except for extremely niche concerns about memory and startup time

I mean sure, let's praise the ergonomics of channels and the reliability of maps. As for datastructures, we already have datastructures at home . They just work fine. Nobody needs more than that because rob pike told us so

Go will never have a map/filter syntax, to the point rob pike even makes fun of it , do you really want to use it for that kind of domain ?

Also since generators are mentioned I recently came across this rob pike moment, he implemented a reduce function that takes and returns all interface{} types and uses reflection to check if the call is valid at runtime - that's the most typical Go that can ever be written in 40 lines - all that to make the point that it's useless. Such a great spirit. https://github.com/robpike/filter

A few points that stood out to me: error handling in Go is generally pretty good. It's much more performant compared to throwing exceptions and the high frequency of error handling helps a lot with debugging and avoiding unexpected errors. What you've described as "poor OOP'ish" is partly true, yes Go does poor OOP, because it doesn't try to do OOP. The language favours composition over inheritance. Strongly applying OOP concepts in Go is simply not using the language in its intended way. For implicit interfaces, it's completely fair that you don't like them, but it's not a disadvantage of the language. I for one find implicit interfaces very intuitive and feel it's the right way for it to be done. No function overloading and lack of ternary operations is absolutely intentional, both of these are overcome by writing more expressive code, which is not a bad thing. Similarly with no built in map/filter/find, these can be achieved using for-loops. Reference https://github.com/robpike/filter for Rob Pike's implementation of filter, stating in the readme that there's not much use for it and to just use for-loops instead. Last thing, enums are expressed using iota: https://go.dev/ref/spec#Iota

> I didn't get that desire for purity that you gleaned from it.

'Folks who develop an allergic reaction to "big balls of mutable state without sum types" tend to gravitate towards languages that gives them control over mutability, lifetimes, and lets them build abstractions.'

This mutability argument is present throughout the article. Seems like nothing sans Rust or niche functional languages is enough.

> Nil pointer exceptions, for example, don't have to exist anymore..

The language most notorious for those is Java due to almost everything being passed via a nullable reference. When everything can be nullable, how can you know where to check for it? Go addresses this to an extent by explicitly separating pointers from values. Values are the default and cannot be nil, so the opportunity for null dereferences is greatly diminished. It's not a perfect solution, but it's not nothing either.

> and yet they do in Go because they couldn't be bothered to add sum types.

Damn those lazy Go devs!

> Its type system is barely a step above a dynamic language.

Turns out even a basic type system is a huge improvement over none. Just being able to restrict values to concrete types goes a long way.

> You have to write the same imperative looping code over and over because Rob Pike would rather just use a for loop than something mildly expressive like map or filter (https://github.com/robpike/filter).

There are arguments to be made either way, but I definitely agree generics (along with iterators) should have been there since day 1.

> Every function that does meaningful work is littered with if err != nil { return err }.

One big positive of this that I don't see in other languages is every `return` in a function must be on the start of a line. That is, every single exit path of a function is easily findable by visually scanning

34. Julia - $74,963

I don't believe there is any official documentation on this, but https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/49430 for example added prefetching to the marking phase of a GC which saw speedups on x86, but not on M1.

3. dispatch on all the arguments

the first solution is clean, but people really like dispatch.

the second makes calling functions in the function call syntax weird, because the first argument is privileged semantically but not syntactically.

the third makes calling functions in the method call syntax weird because the first argument is privileged syntactically but not semantically.

the closest things to this i can think of off the top of my head in remotely popular programming languages are: nim, lisp dialects, and julia.

nim navigates the dispatch conundrum by providing different ways to define free functions for different dispatch-ness. the tutorial gives a good overview: https://nim-lang.org/docs/tut2.html

lisps of course lack UFCS.

see here for a discussion on the lack of UFCS in julia: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/31779

so to sum up the answer to the original question: because it's only obvious how to make it nice and tidy like you're wanting if you sacrifice function dispatch, which is ubiquitous for good reason!

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/release-1.10/NEWS.md

Visit official site: https://julialang.org/

No. It runs natively on ARM.

julia> versioninfo() Julia Version 1.9.3 Commit bed2cd540a1 (2023-08-24 14:43 UTC) Build Info: Official https://julialang.org/ release

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/51086#issuecomment...

So while this "fixes" the issue, it'll introduce a confusing time delay between you freeing the memory and you observing that in `htop`.

But according to https://jemalloc.net/jemalloc.3.html you can set `opt.muzzy_decay_ms = 0` to remove the delay.

Still, the musl author has some reservations against making `jemalloc` the default:

https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2018/04/23/2

> It's got serious bloat problems, problems with undermining ASLR, and is optimized pretty much only for being as fast as possible without caring how much memory you use.

With the above-mentioned tunables, this should be mitigated to some extent, but the general "theme" (focusing on e.g. performance vs memory usage) will likely still mean "it's a tradeoff" or "it's no tradeoff, but only if you set tunables to what you need".

I have asked about Julia's reproducibility story on the Guix mailing list in the past, and at the time Simon Tournier didn't think it was promising. I seem to recall Julia itself didnt have a reproducible build. All I know now is that github issue is still not closed.

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34753

I don't really know what kind of rebuttal you're looking for, but I will link my HN comments from when this was first posted for some thoughts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31396861#31398796. As I said, in the linked post, I'm quite skeptical of the business of trying to assess relative buginess of programming in different systems, because that has strong dependencies on what you consider core vs packages and what exactly you're trying to do.

However, bugs in general suck and we've been thinking a fair bit about what additional tooling the language could provide to help people avoid the classes of bugs that Yuri encountered in the post.

The biggest class of problems in the blog post, is that it's pretty clear that `@inbounds` (and I will extend this to `@assume_effects`, even though that wasn't around when Yuri wrote his post) is problematic, because it's too hard to write. My proposal for what to do instead is at https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/50641.

Another common theme is that while Julia is great at composition, it's not clear what's expected to work and what isn't, because the interfaces are informal and not checked. This is a hard design problem, because it's quite close to the reasons why Julia works well. My current thoughts on that are here: https://github.com/Keno/InterfaceSpecs.jl but there's other proposals also.

Doesn't musl have the same issue? https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34726#issuecomment...

I also wonder about OSX's libc. Newer versions seem to have some sort of locking https://github.com/apple-open-source-mirror/Libc/blob/master...

but older versions (from 10.9) don't have any lockign: https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/Libc/blob/Libc-99...