Julia 1.0 Programming Language Released

[microcode]

Could we get a new language that doesnt have this? I know they have lots of advantages but they makes it harder to get third party build systems, like meson or cmake, to work with them which in turn makes it harder to justify integrating components made in then into larger projects

Well, you can just build it without it. The compiler/runtime itself doesn't technically depend on it, but it is currently the only (maintained) package manager which is intended to put things in the places the compiler/runtime expects. There are package managers for C, it's just that they're not as popular, and there's no "standard" C package manager (and also, arguably, pkg-config is many things that a package manager also is).

[rudregues]

Julia core is mostly written in Julia (core devs want everything in Julia if possible). Julia packages are entirely written in Julia. This is powerful.

[skan]

Interesting comment, you obviously have experience with Julia so I have to ask, would it not make more sense to extend another modern language like Rust, Swift or whatever, to handle science oriented computational loads then you have yet another language that will get little adoption? Seriously, I'm not sure what attraction there is to a language few will use and even fewer will learn to use well when the world is producing millions of C++, Rust, Swift or whatever users.

I'm left with the feeling Julia will be more of a niche language than APL.

Why would you choose Rust, Swift or any other, there are hundreds, and they weren't specifically designed for science.
For that you have Fortran, R(very slow), Chapel and many more.
If you just want to extend a language you have the slow Python, but it's better not to rely on pandas or extras, it's better to have the important things included in the core.
Julia was built from scratch to be a modern scientific language and very fast, and it's not new. And it will try to be easier than C++ or Rust.

[yuyichao]

Could we get a new language that doesnt have this? I know they have lots of advantages but they makes it harder to get third party build systems, like meson or cmake, to work with them which in turn makes it harder to justify integrating components made in then into larger projects

From the prospective of my own usage, I totally agree. However, the reality is that people still use windows and while different 3rd party package managers exist there it's really not that practical to teach everyone about a third party package manager / how to make a package before they can use the language. They'll just not use a package manager and make things worse. For julia specifically, the situation on linux is also made much more complicated by LLVM's "let's break everything on every release" policy together with the large number of LLVM bugs we hit, meaning it's hard for us to use system LLVM, which makes it harder to convince distro maintainer to package julia in the right way (exceptions are being made and this is getting better, slowly).

The new package manager (note that what's new is not a builtin manager, but a different one from the previous version) actually makes less assumptions about whether a package is installed by the builtin package manager or an external one, which should make it easier to integrate into a third party package manager. It also makes the builtin one very complicated but that's kind of necessary....