Who's the audience for Seed7? I googled Seed7 BLAS, Seed7 Linpack, Seed7 FFT and nothing came up. So a large portion of Julia users are not the Seed7 audience. To me, there is almost no similarity between Julia and Seed7, even if the syntax or features were similar. But for the reasons you say, the Seed7 audience would be part of the Julia audience.
Chapel was made for a small niche: most people still aren't dedicating all of their time to parallel programming. That's fine, but it's clear why it isn't seen everywhere. One thing to notice too is that one of Julia's strength is that it allows itself to build off of other's strengths. It doesn't reinvent the wheel, it reinvents the language design and structure. It very naturally plugs into LLVM, FFTW, OpenBLAS, etc. so that way it's fully featured and fully performant, but without having to re-create every little detail. This plus the fact that Julia's Base is mostly written in Julia means that the basics are covered, and Julia can be worked on by standard Julia users. This makes Julia easy to maintain, easy to upgrade, and easy to see a future for. Lastly, why do some languages succeed? Because you have to use them. Julia offers me many things that no other language does, so even though my research adviser didn't want me "trying a new language", I can't make him happy: switching from Julia would only lead to major performance/feature/syntax/maintainability problems (been there, done that). So no matter what, I am going to continue to use Julia. I believe others are the same. And that's why it's succeeding. On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 2:55:28 PM UTC-7, Páll Haraldsson wrote: > > > A. > I just [re?]discovered Seed7 language, one of the few languages with > multiple dispatch, also extensible (not though macros). > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.programming/_C08U8t4dRg > "Seed7 has more then 90 libraries now." [in 2013, after 7 years] > > They hit Top100 (93? top) on TIOBE, but nowhere to be found now. > > They seem very similar, except for Pascal like syntax, I guess there must > be more to it.. > > > B. > Chapel can be faster than Go or competitive, but also much slower (is a > parallel language, not sure if not working/meant to work always..): > > http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/chapel.html > > fasta > <http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php?test=fasta> > > > source secs KB gz cpu cpu load > Chapel > <http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?test=fasta&lang=chapel&id=1> > 20.59 > 28,868 1216 20.59 100% 0% 0% 1% > Go > <http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?test=fasta&lang=go&id=3> > 1.97 > >
