- Naming a PL "Julia" is sexist and creepy
- The language doesn't add any substantial value to PL theory or programming methodology compared to say, Python
- The future of computer-human interaction is not in programming. Python will be good enough until we reach that point where we can use neural networks/AI to do most of the business tasks.
How? (I kind of assume that a big reason computer scientists would pull out that name without a specific referent in mind is the influence of the Julia set, named for Gaston Julia.)
> The language doesn't add any substantial value to PL theory or programming methodology compared to say, Python
Maybe; not all practical benefits in programming come from advances in methodology or PL theory.
> The future of computer-human interaction is not in programming.
I've been hearing that since the early 80s. When someone makes that future reality, we can discuss what it requires, until then programming is what we have and I'm glad it wasn't neglected for the last four decades, and I hope it won't be for the next however many it takes, either.
- I don't think Python added anything to PL theory or methodology either. At least Julia introduced multiple dispatch to a new audience.
- How is the name sexist or creepy?