Re:The unreasonable effectiveness of the Julia programming l...
by leephillips on Friday October 09, 2020 @10:30AM
(#24730240)
This is an issue for me. Although I find the lisp idea beautiful, my programming usually has some relation to mathematics, to equations. In lisp, math just doesn’t look like math. Julia goes the opposite way: it's use of Unicode for identifiers and such things as allowing juxtaposition for multiplication (when not ambiguous) make math look more like math than in any other language.
Re:The unreasonable effectiveness of the Julia programming l...
by pmoriarty on Friday October 09, 2020 @10:42AM
(#24730346)
I do like the the option of using unicode symbols in Julia, but this need not be thought of as only a language feature.
Emacs allows you to substitute any text for any other when viewing a document, so you can pretty much do the same in Emacs for any language.
I did this when editing LaTeX papers full of logic symbols, which Emacs would display as the symbols themselves rather than as the underlying LaTeX markup.
It could do the same for Lisp or any other language.
Re:The unreasonable effectiveness of the Julia programming l...
by leephillips on Friday October 09, 2020 @10:47AM
(#24730391)
Vim can do this to (with a plugin). And you can enter Unicode in the Julia REPL by entering the TeX command and hitting TAB.
Re:The unreasonable effectiveness of the Julia programming l...
by jsrcout on Friday October 09, 2020 @09:45PM
(#24736127)
> Emacs allows you to substitute any text for any other when viewing a document
Do you have a reference or search term for that? My Google-fu is failing me.
Re:The unreasonable effectiveness of the Julia programming l...
by vats on Friday October 09, 2020 @11:29PM
(#24736506)
It's called prettify-symbols-mode: http://www.modernemacs.com/post/prettify-mode/
Re:The unreasonable effectiveness of the Julia programming l...
by andi999 on Friday October 09, 2020 @09:17PM
(#24735973)
I believe the bigger problem is that macros are too powerful. This leads to that every project becomes its own DSL, which is not compatible with other projects. So code sharing/ availability of tested libraries is low. This leads to low adoption rate.
Of course if you want to build your own (mega-) fortress all by yourself, Lisp is the language to go to. Most people and stakeholder prefer not to.
The reason is pretty clear. Mainstream programmers are just allergic to Lisp syntax.
They don't like all the parenthesis, and want a more Algol-like syntax (which, these days, and especially for the users who Julia is trying to attract, means a more Python-like syntax).
Lisp for a lot of developers also has an old, stale feel to it. Programming is dominated by fads, and most programmers (especially younger ones) want instead to chase the new shiny.
Decades ago, I read that there were already something like 4,000 languages. I expect in another couple of decades there'll be 4,000 more, with every new generation of developers eager to jump on the bandwagon of yet another new language.
Python, once the new kid on the block dethroning Perl, is now itself considered to be kind of old and stale, so people are looking for the new thing. Maybe Julia is it!