Re: How Julia compare with others

[david tweed]

Note that it's not clear that extreme shortness is a particuarly desirable thing: it's often achieved by having lots of chains of functions consuming arguments of others, which is fine when the program is producing the correct results. On the other hand, if you need to debug it, it's often helpful to be able to look at intermediate results. In very short languages this is acheived either by not caring whether the results are correct (I'm exaggerating a bit here, but not much) or by having to split it out into a debug version which gets debugged, then converted back to the short form. Personally, I'd prefer to have to make minimal changes to code when debugging (because I'll often make a mistake and add extra bugs while doing this) even if it means the code is a bit longer.

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 3:06:33 AM UTC, hon_fui wrote:

Stumbled this website that compares code length measurement of 14 programming languages.

http://blog.wolfram.com/2012/11/14/code-length-measured-in-14-languages/

Just wondering where Julia will be in this comparison?

It can be an additional interesting benchmark for Julia's publicity (similar to code compile time micro-benchmark on Julialang.org website)

Thanks.