I second this. I'm a scientist who also happens to program (as more of us are finding we need to do). The two languages I use the most are R and Python. Most of the time, I don't even give Ruby a second thought because it seems to be primarily geared towards web development. In general, I shy away from web development, but I know that Python is more than capable if I wanted to try it out. There really doesn't seem to be any incentive for us to learn Ruby.
Have you ever worked in the finance industry? Those guys will kill their own family if it will get them a $5K raise.
I worked in the california mortgage industry before going to college. These guys would convince families living paycheck to paycheck to buy/refinance REALLY expensive homes. If they were on a 30 year fixed, we get them on an option-arm. If they are on an option-arm, we get them on a 30-year fixed.
This is all typical finance stuff. But here comes the kicker--they would actually outright LIE about interest rates and had a few shady notaries to back them. They would say you have a 1% interest rate (for 30 years) when it was really a 5 year option-arm and screw people. The worst part is, CA has some sort of law that protects mortgage lenders from unhappy customers after 5 years time (exactly when the 1% interest rate would fly to the market rate). Needless to say, several people left the company when we found out. Some folks reported them to the BBB--I don't know what happened to those scumbags though. I really hope people like that stay out of science.
A lot of times, I really don't think there is a need for a whole new language. I use R and python for scientific computing all of the time. There are packages which have been well validated and a community of folks who support the software. Making a new language may be interesting, but if it doesn't really bring anything new to the table, it's just asking for a micro-niche user base (just think of the million and one web frameworks out there).
Julia looks interesting, but I don't see anything that makes me jump up and say, "I want to use that!" Everything I have seen so far can already be done with R, Python, or a combination of the two. If there are a few minor drawbacks to any process in R or Python, I would rather live with it than learn yet another language. Speed is not an issue -- if it is then I am likely coding incorrectly. If I have coded correctly, then it is worth taking the time to create a C library (and since everything else is in perspective, this is just "monkey coding" and never takes as long as we think).
I wish all of the folks who are bright enough to create their own language would voice their wants and needs to the existing coding communities to see if their needs can't be met rather than making something brand new. This kind of community interaction is crucial for a language to mature. Wouldn't you rather have a few very mature languages rather than a million young ones (each of which has its own pros and cons)?
I've only tinkered with objective-C and I'm not even comfortable saying I "know" the language, but does anyone else think some of this code is surprisingly concise?
Thanks SkyMarshal, I use Play all of the time. I've never tried Lift though--I might give that a go soon as well. I'm curious about whether or not there is a framework of Clojure however. From the responses, it seems like Noir is the popular solution these days :-)
I would say where you would like to live depends on where you are moving from :-D
I like Twin Peaks myself (although it's pricey). If you are moving out from a suburb and would like to "ease" yourself into the city, Twin Peaks would suit you just fine. One of the additional perks is that Twin Peaks is right in the middle of SF.
I lived in Hunters Point for a while (super cheap), and taxi drivers would refuse to take me home (due to the high crime rate in that area).
I'll admit, when I was a C programmer, I was victim to "Dysfunctional sense of causality."
I remember taking a C class in my undergrad, nailing the code to perfection, and getting an F because I had written the code in under different architecture and compiled with a different compiler (not specified in the prompt by any means). It ran well on my computer (and I proved it), but since it wouldn't run on my professors computer or TAs computer, I still received an F.
So yes, I still maintain strong malice towards C :-)
I've always found this productivity idea weak. I might set out 1 hour a day to accomplish a task, but if my heart isn't in it, it's just an hour of low-quality work--I may as well have not done it at all or waited for an optimal time.
However, I do see how this could be useful for tasks which aren't creative or need much thinking. Say for example, brushing teeth after lunch.