Yeah, I don't think we need runnable widgets on the main page. A better option would be to have a "Run in JuliaBox" link which could start a new session.
As far as code samples go, the ideal ones should: * be around 10 lines or so * demonstrate the key features of Julia (i.e. all the things under "A Summary of Features" on the current homepage). Haskell's site does this well. * do something that is cool and/or useful (some of the Wolfram Alpha examples are quite neat, albeit gimmicky). We should definitely have a prominent link to the packages: a common critique of new languages is that they lack the package ecosystem of Python/R/etc. On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 11:28:24 UTC, Valentin Churavy wrote: > > I agree that displaying runnable code widgets are useless, but showing the > good integration with Jupyter/IPython via juliabox/tmpnb/SAGE is not. > It would enable to demonstrated people features of Julia without having > them actually installing yet another programming environment, thus reducing > the barrier of entry. > > On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 08:20:48 UTC+1, Jake Bolewski wrote: >> >> Am I the only one who thinks these runnable code widgets are totally >> useless? I'm curious as to how users interact with them in the real >> world. I bet 99% of them either ignore it or just press the button and see >> the default output. The ones who probably interact with it the most are >> going to be the same users that are going to download and run the language >> anyway. They displace huge amounts of real estate for basically no >> practical value. >> >> To me the landing page to a programming language is really a nice >> backdrop for four things, A giant button where I can go download what I >> want because I'm lazy and just click on the top google hit. Another >> prominent link to the Julia package ecosystem because I'm lazy and typing >> "julia" AND "packages" is way too much work (haskell did a survey a while >> back, if I remember correctly a majority of users to the front page fell >> under this category). In addition, enough background information to get >> people to click on the manual and a nice community / development activity >> section so I can see that things are happening. Please, please don't make >> me scroll past a huge useless web 2.0 header to get to what I actually want >> (again, lazy). I like the Racket, Haskell, and OCaml websites as I think >> they are utilitarian but actually useful. I agree that the Rust site is a >> bit too minimalist. I absolutely hate the python website. The R website is >> just laughably bad. Altogether, I don't think PL's set a high bar in this >> regard. >> >> -Jake >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:16:42 AM UTC-5, cdm wrote: >>> >>> >>> re tight code ... >>> >>> S. Danisch's code length v. speed plot may well be deserving of some >>> real esate: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7IPcrjXuxFY/VICwQ3TrgRI/AAAAAAAAJV0/_HmDWZiBrXQ/s1600/benchmarks.png >>> >>> >>> >>> awesome. >>> >>> cdm >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 9:09:03 PM UTC-8, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Leah Hanson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't know if you want to encourage different styles, but seeing >>>>> examples of Python like, c like, and functional-ish ways of writing Julia >>>>> would be a way to show off the variety of things you can do. >>>> >>>> >>>> I really this idea. Having a grid of four code examples with different >>>> styles – Pythonic/Matlabish, C-like, functional and Julian (i.e. with >>>> types >>>> and multiple dispatch). Now we just need to come up with good examples. >>>> Another thing I wonder if it would be good to highlight is how tight the >>>> code generated for simple, high-level Julia code is. Maybe not on the main >>>> page though but on the about page. >>>> >>>
