[ksaitor]

> We want the speed of C with the dynamism of Ruby. We want a language that’s homoiconic, with true macros like Lisp, but with obvious, familiar mathematical notation like Matlab. We want something as usable for general programming as Python, as easy for statistics as R, as natural for string processing as Perl, as powerful for linear algebra as Matlab, as good at gluing programs together as the shell.

… they forgot to compare Julia to JavaScript — the most popular programming language in the world.

Or is that because authors don't want Julia to be used by anyone?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[I'm joking, ofc. But I still find it weird how almost every modern language is mentioned, but JavaScript…]

[FridgeSeal]

JavaScript, whilst widely used, is not a language I would want to compare my own against when it comes to talking about quality and features, unless I want to talk about how actual thought went into my language.

[one-more-minute]

Perhaps it would have been good to add “the reach of JavaScript”. Webassembly wasn’t around at the time of the post, but it’s a promising way to get there that’s actively being worked on.