Am I the only one who thinks these runnable code widgets are totally useless? I'm curious as to how users interact with them in the real world. I bet 99% of them either ignore it or just press the button and see the default output. The ones who probably interact with it the most are going to be the same users that are going to download and run the language anyway. They displace huge amounts of real estate for basically no practical value.
To me the landing page to a programming language is really a nice backdrop for four things, A giant button where I can go download what I want because I'm lazy and just click on the top google hit. Another prominent link to the Julia package ecosystem because I'm lazy and typing "julia" AND "packages" is way too much work (haskell did a survey a while back, if I remember correctly a majority of users to the front page fell under this category). In addition, enough background information to get people to click on the manual and a nice community / development activity section so I can see that things are happening. Please, please don't make me scroll past a huge useless web 2.0 header to get to what I actually want (again, lazy). I like the Racket, Haskell, and OCaml websites as I think they are utilitarian but actually useful. I agree that the Rust site is a bit too minimalist. I absolutely hate the python website. The R website is just laughably bad. Altogether, I don't think PL's set a high bar in this regard. -Jake On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:16:42 AM UTC-5, cdm wrote: > > > re tight code ... > > S. Danisch's code length v. speed plot may well be deserving of some real > esate: > > > > https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7IPcrjXuxFY/VICwQ3TrgRI/AAAAAAAAJV0/_HmDWZiBrXQ/s1600/benchmarks.png > > > > awesome. > > cdm > > > On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 9:09:03 PM UTC-8, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Leah Hanson <astri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I don't know if you want to encourage different styles, but seeing >>> examples of Python like, c like, and functional-ish ways of writing Julia >>> would be a way to show off the variety of things you can do. >> >> >> I really this idea. Having a grid of four code examples with different >> styles – Pythonic/Matlabish, C-like, functional and Julian (i.e. with types >> and multiple dispatch). Now we just need to come up with good examples. >> Another thing I wonder if it would be good to highlight is how tight the >> code generated for simple, high-level Julia code is. Maybe not on the main >> page though but on the about page. >> >
