|
It's a young language still. Pre-compilation has brought "time to first plot" down considerably, and ameliorated many (but not all) of the specific complaints in that gist. One stands out, which is "lack of pattern matching", Julia is a language like CL where a language feature can be a library. MLStyle is arguably the best but there are a few[0]. Similarly, there's a start (heh) on a condition and restart system[1]. Julia macros are actually full-strength and that makes up for a lot. I would say that "less mature" is a fair comparison with CL but "less rich" is more of a judgement call. When people are in a mood to be critical of Common Lisp, the richness of the package/system ecosystem is a frequent target of that critique. Binaries which aren't enormous is a main focus of development now, as I understand the timeline 1.11 will bring modest improvements (in the next few months) and 1.12 will be relentlessly focused on achieving this, it's a recognized problem. I find Julia completely suitable for general-purpose programming, right now. Moreover I see it on the right trajectory. My hope is that when the trigger is pulled on 2.0, this will include a standardization process, resulting in an actually-stable language by about 2030. Note that Julia is closer to Rust-stable than Python-stable already, post-1.0 code which runs on the latest version (1.10) is more common than not, but I do think compatibility needs to be broken, once, eventually, to fix some bad decisions. It shouldn't have to happen twice. [0]: https://juliahub.com/ui/Search?q=pattern+matching&type=packa... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39377229 |