It's definitely gotten further on my radar in the past year or so, though I remember reading this a few years ago and finding it pretty cool then, too:
Relevant HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12223395
Seeing Lilith in (what was, I think) December was what really alerted me to the fact that it had come along so far, I had mostly thought it was dead before.
Relevant HN thread on Lilith: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21860713
If you or anyone reading this has access to that book in epub or similar ereader format I'd greatly appreciate. It seems Wirth published only a PDF (probably from MS Word)
For example by running A2 and starting Oberon System 3 from it.
Regarding converting them into epub, I guess it is a question of copyright, even if Wirth has made the PDF versions freely available, but I am no lawyer.
I've been playing around with Crystal for some toy projects as well as some data cleaning/munging scripts. I had a fairly large CSV dump that was making Ruby choke to death - porting to Crystal was trivial and it ran amazingly fast!
I'm super interested to see where the concurrency story goes in Crystal. Fingers crossed!
When you say you don't need it, don't you use crystal for developing backend APIs ?
If Crystal can make a case for itself as a systems programming language, I'm very interested.
Do Ruby users care only about syntax?
Maybe I'm not so different? Maybe my preference for ALGOL syntax just gives me more language options?
I guess part of it is that I'm lazy and haven't learned supervisor strategies like kubernetes (the place I work doesn't deploy kubernetes anyways)
This video is instrumental in giving me the confidence to do what I did: https://youtu.be/JvBT4XBdoUE
OTOH I realize that many people don't use that expressive power and are happy with copy-pasting stuff.
The only thing missing is having more love for JIT compilers among the Python community.
For me both languages have similar types of appeal. Ruby is quick to pick up, allows you to write expressive code and is built on the idea of everything being an object. So Ruby is both clean, easy and expressive.
Julia is EXACTLY the same, but for the modern age. It is easy to learn and expressive. Like Ruby the type system is consistent all over. It is not like Java which has primitive types and objects. Numbers in both Julia and Ruby are treated like any other type.
The primary difference is that Ruby came of age in the most object-oriented hyped period of programming language development and that reflects its heavy OOP design.
Julia came around when OOP was no longer considered the silver bullet. So why Julia has elaborate type hierarchies, it is probably closer to a functional language than an object-oriented one.
When Ruby came out it was a language that appealed to programming language geeks like me. It had a bunch of really powerful features we where not used to.
Julia is kind of the same. Multiple-dispatch and Julia macros is something that appeals to all geeks.
I actually never switched to Julia for performance reasons, but because I loved the language.
Julia has multimethods dispatch.
One of the most famous writings about them is called "The Art of MetaObject Protocol".
A book to be read by everyone that thinks OOP is just the Java way.
While at it, reading about BETA and Self would also be illuminating.
I use TypeScript for everything I used to use Ruby for, save for the occasional file munging inside of `pry`.
These days I write Typescript. I’m excited for Deno, which looks like it’ll solve most of the Node bullshit.
Ruby 3.0 should be much faster still.
I understand we might get there one day but I'm afraid this is taking far too long.