Ummm, CPython is also leaky abstraction. Parts of the C implementation, like garbage collection, id(), 'a is b' checks, the ast and dis modules, and more.
It even has the beginnings of JIT support.
The leaky abstraction thesis is that all layers leak.
Julia's argument is that if you have all of these levels anyway, do it in one language instead of two. If you don't like leaky abstractions, you should prefer a system with one less layer of abstraction.
You also reject Rust, yes? It has many of the same abilities.
And JITed Lisp implementations with user access to the JITted code?
> then how can it be in anyway an encompassing system and how can that be coherent among all levels without requiring someone to know all levels at which point
That sounds like an argument from incredulity.
Just because you don't see how something can be true, that doesn't mean it isn't true.
> which is sometimes tied to only working on amd64 because someone wanted an assembler way of pattern matching for some reason
I believe all of the big C compiler vendors support ways to embed assembly. I use it in my code, for better support for x86-64, and a fallback for other platforms.
I also used Turbo Pascal's inline assembly in the early 1990s.
> but none that claim to break the laws of physics and reason with their evangelism than Julia
I guess you're too young to remember Lisp evangelists.
You seem to be reacting to something beyond what is in the linked-to essay. What breaks the laws of physics? Again, appealing to gut instinct isn't that good of an argument.
> Just because you don't see how something can be true, that doesn't mean it isn't true.
This is also a non-answer and I don't mean to be flippant but if you have any further justification I'd love to read it. It is the core of the argument you're handwaving away.
Ummm, CPython is also leaky abstraction. Parts of the C implementation, like garbage collection, id(), 'a is b' checks, the ast and dis modules, and more.
It even has the beginnings of JIT support.
The leaky abstraction thesis is that all layers leak.
Julia's argument is that if you have all of these levels anyway, do it in one language instead of two. If you don't like leaky abstractions, you should prefer a system with one less layer of abstraction.
You also reject Rust, yes? It has many of the same abilities.
And JITed Lisp implementations with user access to the JITted code?
> then how can it be in anyway an encompassing system and how can that be coherent among all levels without requiring someone to know all levels at which point
That sounds like an argument from incredulity.
Just because you don't see how something can be true, that doesn't mean it isn't true.
> which is sometimes tied to only working on amd64 because someone wanted an assembler way of pattern matching for some reason
I believe all of the big C compiler vendors support ways to embed assembly. I use it in my code, for better support for x86-64, and a fallback for other platforms.
I also used Turbo Pascal's inline assembly in the early 1990s.
> but none that claim to break the laws of physics and reason with their evangelism than Julia
I guess you're too young to remember Lisp evangelists.
You seem to be reacting to something beyond what is in the linked-to essay. What breaks the laws of physics? Again, appealing to gut instinct isn't that good of an argument.