Instead of settling on a single "Why Julia", perhaps there should be a page on the new julialang.org that includes testimonials like this from different people using Julia.
On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:55:14 AM UTC-8, Isaiah wrote: > > I've tried to start something like it at >> http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/staff/C.Ortner/index.php?page=julia >> This was aimed mostly at my own research group and some friends and >> colleagues. >> > > Your "Why Julia" section is really fantastic. > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Christoph Ortner <christop...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I would really like to see a page along the lines of >> http://www.mathworks.com/examples/ >> >> I've tried to start something like it at >> http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/staff/C.Ortner/index.php?page=julia >> This was aimed mostly at my own research group and some friends and >> colleagues. >> >> Some ideas: >> * If I want a specific standard problem solved, then I can go look how >> a competent Julia programmer did it. >> * They should to be "attractive" >> * Could be useful for teaching >> * Could have examples of 4 different coding paradigms that some people >> are keen on >> * Maybe some core Julia group could review submissions rather than >> letting anybody post notebooks >> * What I am unsure about is whether notebooks, once posted, should >> become open source or not. >> * Finally - I am unsure whether it would be really necessary to make >> them interactive. But possibly an [export to Julia-box] button? >> >> I think such a page will also quickly show where the bottlenecks are in >> getting Julia to a wider community. >> >> Christoph >> >> >> On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 22:23:26 UTC, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >>> >>> We're looking to redesign the JuliaLang.org home page and try to give it >>> a little more focus than it currently has. Which raises the question of >>> what to focus on. We could certainly have better code examples and maybe >>> highlight features of the language and its ecosystem better. What do people >>> think we should include? >>> >> >
