# 1.0 annoyances and Matlab comparison

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/1-0-annoyances-and-matlab-comparison/9433
**Category:** Internals & Design
**Created:** [March 1, 2018, 9:49pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/1-0-annoyances-and-matlab-comparison/9433 "2018-03-01T21:49:56Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 9

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![ScottPJones](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/scottpjones/32/146_2.png) [@ScottPJones](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ScottPJones)
#### Post date: [March 1, 2018, 11:51pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/1-0-annoyances-and-matlab-comparison/9433/9 "2018-03-01T23:51:40Z")

</div>

> [@1.0 adoption path?](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/1-0-adoption-path/7922/67):
>
> Julia is a genuine scientific computing language, not just an extension for doing scientific programming on top of a general-purpose language.

Designed from the ground up to be best of breed scientific/technical computing language by some greedy hackers, yes, but it also has the “bones” to be a top notch general purpose language (which is what I use it for).

The “using” this and that I don’t think is really going to be so much of an issue.  
One can simply make a file that has “using …” all of the scientific packages you need, and include that.

There is actually a lot more that could be slimmed out of the language, such as `BigInt`, `BigFloat`, `Regex`, in a way that maybe by default they got loaded up out of `stdlib`, but via a command-line switch or some other mechanism you could have a very light Julia.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/1-0-annoyances-and-matlab-comparison/9433)._