> Do you have an example of a language with arbitrary-precision overflow by default and comparable performance?
No, but that also means Julia isn't much special then either right?
Maybe it is just me but Julia positions itself as a better Python not just a better C, in that position, can you really blame people if they misunderstand and expect same "high level" behavior from it?
>No, but that also means Julia isn't much special then either right?
That's a really dumb conclusion. It's special in other things it offers (from a better Matlab like language with crazy ass speed to homoiconicy and great FFI). Who said it's only special if it fulfils some specific rainbow-unicorn pipe dream?
It also doesn't read the programmer's thought -- so not special in that regard either.
>Maybe it is just me but Julia positions itself as a better Python not just a better C, in that position, can you really blame people if they misunderstand and expect same "high level" behavior from it?
Lots of people also find Go a "better Python", and Go is like assembly compared to Julia...
Better Python in the sense of Python for scientific computing: eg Pandas et all. They aren't targeting all the use cases of Python (for example, I doubt anyone would suggest writing a monit style tool in Julia).
(defun double (x)
(+ x x)) ; BigInts (or floats, for that matter)
(defun double (x)
(declare (type fixnum x))
(+ x x)) ; will emit an error if X is more than a long
(defun double (x)
(declare (type fixnum x)
(optimize speed (safety 0)))
(the fixnum (+ x x))) ; trusts that everything is a long - basically like C
