I have programmed in Python so far and find the Python syntax very convenient. When learning Julia I constantly notice things that I can not understand: Why is there no short and simple floor division operator like in Python //? Why is the type conversation not as short and sweet as in Python int…

[image] Sandjan: Why is there no short and simple floor division operator like in Python //? There are two: div and ÷, the latter being an infix operator. [image] Sandjan: Why is the type conversation not as short and sweet as in Python int(“4”)? Type conversion is completely straight…

You are absolutly right. When I saw that Julia could return several things at once, I realized that I have to change a few habbits. But the old reflex are still there. For instance, I have a function returning 4 Float64. Well, I defined the function as returning a Vector{Float64} of 4 elements ins…

Beleive it or not I’m used to finish a main() with exit(0) just to conclude that all end well. When I started using MPI I realized how it worked because an exit() will simply kill the whole thing on all servers at once. The the MPI compiler (kind of) is simply changing your main() into a function.…

[image] dgagnon: I defined the function as returning a Vector{Float64} of 4 elements instead of simply returning a b c and d. Thing is, the function doesn’t really return 4 things, but a tuple of length 4, (a, b, c, d). You can write it without the parentheses, but it’s really a tuple. If you…

Shocked and horrified, I had to try it for myself: julia> if(false) return(1) else(return(2)) end() ERROR: syntax: extra token "(" after end of expression Faith in humanity restored. What version are you using? 1.8 and 1.9 on my end. P.S. I wouldn’t be opposed if the final () invoked a function …

[image] DNF: return (a, b, c, d) I would write generally, without thinking much: return (; a, b, c, d) , then you can use it any of the multiple ways: (; a, b, d) = foo(x1) # correspondence by name c = foo(x2).c e = foo(x3).[2] f = foo(x4).[:d] g, _, h, j = foo(x5) # correspondence by pos…

The “naturalness” of 1-based numbering is not just the result of familiarity and habit. It also has to do with having consistency between cardinal and ordinal meanings of numbers. For example, if we have 1 (cardinal) apple, we call it “apple 1 (ordinal)”. When we add another apple, so that now we h…

We’re also just as adept at “0-based” sorts of numberings when it comes to things like birthdays and other durations or lengths. We don’t even realize we’re doing it, which leads to all sorts of confusions when the two conventions collide in real life, too.

Yep julia> Dates.default.([Year, Month, Week, Day, Hour, Minute, Second, Millisecond, Nanosecond]) 9-element Vector{Period}: 1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds 0 milliseconds 0 nanoseconds

Even in those cases, that’s not how we number them. When you’re 11 years old, you’re in your 12th year. And year 2023, contrary to popular belief, is the 2023d year of the era.

[image] gustaphe: And year 2023, contrary to popular belief, is the 2023d year of the era. Yup! The first century only had 99 years!

Why are there all these strange stumbling blocks in Julia?

New to Julia

Topic		Replies	Views
Introduce ++ as the concatenation operator Internals & Design	60	4662	April 17, 2020
The strangeness (or not) of * as string concatenation General Usage	78	1968	September 9, 2025
Syntax Surprises General Usage syntax , discussion , fun , gotchas	83	6393	January 21, 2023
Julia is a very different and interesting language New to Julia	34	4461	May 8, 2018
How can i make Julia array index to start from zero 0 and not from one 1? New to Julia offsetarrays	31	1971	May 25, 2025

Why are there all these strange stumbling blocks in Julia?

Related topics