Talk:Julia (programming language)

Checked overflow support on all integer operations, allowed now. Reworked some more of this text that I deleted earlier.

In Julia all data types are supported in a completely general way (not needing manifest typing, that is optional); even those commonly implemented in processors, such as integers (signed and unsigned) from 8-bit to 64-bit, defaulting to signed 32-bit or 64-bit depending on CPU architecture (and additionally 128-bit and arbitrary-precision arithmetic "BigInt", which are slower as not supported in hardware by CPUs); all common/fast floating-point types up to 64-bit/"double" (and a package bigger using the double-double arithmetic trick), even decimal floating-point type (not supported in hardware by x86/ARM CPUs etc. requiring software emulation) in a package Decimals.jl. In general, all types, whether built-in or not, are treated the same, with "no abstraction penalty" (while software emulation, would necessarily slow down, when CPUs support a type if Julia wouldn't). While CPU registers bigger than 64 bits are available in CPUs, such as in x86, they are SIMD-style vector registers of many 32-bit values (or smaller), also supported in Julia at high speed (might in some cases need the @simd macro).

Complex numbers are supported by the language.

Julia uses efficient "machine integers" (e.g. modular numbers), not checking overflows (does for floating point), by default, while separate functions allow that. "integer arithmetic overflow" is discussed for addition by version 1.0 and at JuliaCon 2014, but may or may not end up being the default. The performance section of Julia's manual justifies non-checked machine integer use (that is faster), compared to saturated (that e.g. MATLAB uses), or exceptions on overflow. Julia however has "checked integer conversions" in 0.4.0-rc3. comp.arch (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2015‎ (UTC)

References

Reads like advertising

What it says. Sorry, but it does. 2601:1C0:5401:2040:5CCB:C27C:F135:5733 (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I mostly just glanced at the article but the sentence "Julia programs can also be (separately) compiled to binary executables, even allowing no-source-code distribution, and the executables can get much smaller with Julia 1.12." stuck out to me. Do we really need to list that 1.12 can produce smaller executables? That reads more like an ad than something belonging in an encyclopedia. Kittybwained (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Currently compiled apps are huge, why 1.12 is mentioned, i.e. upcoming juliac tool in there, and its binaries are small. Yes, 1.12 isn't released yet as stable, but it is usable in beta form so I thought mentioning its capabilities was ok. Feel free to just change. comp.arch (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Robust edits to address feedback

I'm looking to do fairly major rewrites of sections to address a number of the justified critiques on this talk page, with a focus on increasing readability, a balanced tone and inclusion of reliable independent sources. Happy to discuss here or on my talk page User:Jfo17 Jfo17 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

No code examples!

I came to this article, as I do with other articles on programming languages, to see some code examples demonstrating the features, syntax, and flavor of the language (as I am considering using it).

I was astonished to see very little —if any— code examples demonstrating the language. I think it is important for an article on a programming language to give the reader a sense of how the language looks like, its syntax and constructs, etc. ~2025-33200-58 (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Awkward, non-standard grammar and constructions

I'm a native English speaker, a fan+user of Julia, and a frequent user of Wikipedia, so I expected to like the Julia page. Instead, I find the article awkward and hard to read. It reads like it was written by a non-native speaker of English who was using their native grammar. For example, the sentences often feel way too long. I corrected a few small things today, and will try to do more.

A specific suggestion: longer is not always better. I'm generally in favor of long Wikipedia articles, but would prefer the Julia page to be shorter to reflect the clean nature of the language. The page feels bloated and slightly incoherent at present. Sanpitch (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2026 (UTC)