I agree that displaying runnable code widgets are useless, but showing the good integration with Jupyter/IPython via juliabox/tmpnb/SAGE is not. It would enable to demonstrated people features of Julia without having them actually installing yet another programming environment, thus reducing the barrier of entry.
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 08:20:48 UTC+1, Jake Bolewski wrote: > > 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. >>> >>
