[tyre]

I sympathize with the grandparaent comment. The first three aren't exactly unique. Many languages are parallel and portable and productive.

Listing adjectives isn't a "why". A "why" would be: "Chapel is a language built for distributed memory systems. Unlike X or Y, Chapel has first class language concepts for distributed memory management, sharded storage…" etc. etc. (I just made that up.)

Then you know right off the bat whether this language is the one you need for the problem you have.

What you refer to as a silly meme might also be a legitimate critique that surfaces again and again when hackers/engineers build things that solve a problem they have, think it is cool or interesting, but aren't able to communicate the value to others.

It's not unreasonable to ask, at the very least, for a simple "why does this exist?" (An entirely reasonable answer to which might be, "because I thought it was cool!")

[dragonwriter]

> A "why" would be:

«Chapel has the goal of supporting any parallel algorithm you can conceive of on any parallel hardware you want to target. In particular, you should never hit a point where you think “Well, that was fun while it lasted, but now that I want to do x, I’d better go back to MPI.» https://www.cray.com/blog/chapel-productive-parallel-program...