|
|
|
|
|
|
by asdf1234
3314 days ago
|
|
|
> because the tools it uses are, objectively, better. Bullshit. Python is often used for early exploration but the people doing serious work in ML almost always end up using C++, Java or Scala. > you're dismissing them for decidedly stupid reasons So having relatively poor tooling, poor package management, poor performance and bad concurrency support aren't good reasons for dismissing a language? Go and Python aren't even particularly well designed languages. That's far more than you've given for dismissing Java and claiming that alternatives are "vastly better for a typical startup." |
|
|
LOL. What? Did you poll every company doing ML work to arrive at that conclusion? C++, sure. Java and Scala? I've literally NEVER seen actual ML work done in either language at either of the 2 companies (both big 4) I've worked at.
> So having relatively poor tooling,
No. Is Java's tooling generally better? Probably. Does that make all other tooling poor? No.
> poor package management
Stop treating your preference as if it's fact.
> poor performance
Which matters sometimes, but not always. If performance were a metric that made a language live or die, nobody would use anything but C/C++.
> bad concurrency support
Only in Python. But that's moot, you don't need concurrency in every application. Do you realize there are ENORMOUS applications, in-use today, that scales dramatically and they are written in a variety of languages, including Python?
> Go and Python aren't even particularly well designed languages.
Your arguments here indicate you have very little understanding of basic language use-cases, so pardon me if I don't hold your opinion on language design to a very high standard.
> aren't good reasons for dismissing a language
They aren't reasons. They are your opinions and a fundamental misunderstanding of basic use-cases. Frankly, based on what you've said so far, your judgement about languages in general is on-par with what I'd expect for a new grad CS major that only used C++ or Java while in college.
> That's far more than you've given for dismissing Java and claiming that alternatives are "vastly better for a typical startup."
And yet I clearly explained why Java is generally not a good choice for a startup. And it seems, most startups agree since the majority don't use Java.