[s_Hogg]

So? This whole argument over which programming language is the best all seems a bit tools-first to me. I used to program in R and was a package owner, but switched to python because it had stuff I needed (TF before it ever got ported to R).

Nowadays I program in python because it has all I need. If something comes out in Julia that makes the cost of picking up another language worth it then I'll do it without a second thought. Until then, why bother? The don't waste your time argument can cut both ways, you know.

To clarify: I see no inherent reason to not program in Julia or any other language. But you work with whatever gets your job done efficiently and right now that's neither of those languages for a lot of people.

[adamnemecek]

> This whole argument over which programming language is the best all seems a bit tools-first to me.

Not really, syntax and semantics are adjoints.

[s_Hogg]

Exactly: you're talking about semantics.

In a great many cases, they aren't a first-order issue - which is where my objection to a blanket "don't waste your time" claim comes from.

[adamnemecek]

What is there besides semantics?

[krapht]

Uh, adoption by the community at large? The best program is the one you didn't have to write because a package existed for it already. Just because a language has a foreign function interface doesn't mean it's easy to interact with other libraries.

R, Python, Matlab, and C++ are the big dogs in scientific programming, and the inertia behind having a large community behind than will continue to drive adoption.

[adamnemecek]

That's my point, Julia's interop is unparalleled. Like it legit takes one line to call a python library. You get back a result in native julia type.