The good, bad & missing from Bio* libraries?

As I mentioned recently, I've been exploring how I might use the emerging Julia language to solve problems.  While that requires a large amount of mental work, I see some potential gains, both in having more readable code than Perl as well as to potentially leverage a lot of high-level concepts for parallel execution that are built into the language.  But beyond the challenge of elderly canine pedagogy that I present, there is the issue that the BioJulia library is quite embryonic, with serious consideration of treating much of the existing code base as a first draft (or, that is the impression I get from skimming the Google group).  So I'm going to try to pitch in, despite my multiple handicaps.

After the New Yorker piece, what of disruptive innovation?

I don't read a lot of books aimed at the MBA crowd, but one set I have liked, and sometimes cite here, are Clayton Christensen's on inovation and disruption.  As you may have heard, a recent article in the New Yorker by Jill Lepore took a gimlet-eye view to the whole concept and raised serious questions about Christensen's methods.  This was then summarized by another author in Slate and since then Christensen has responded in part via a Business Week interview.  He's also scheduled to be interviewed on PBS this weekend, so likely there will be further developments.  Indeed, after sketching this out on the commute home I discovered a Financial Times article whose tone is very similar to what I have written below.

Dabbling with Julia

As I've remarked before, I've done significant coding in a large number of languages over the last 35-or-so years.  I don't consider myself a computer language savant; I've known folks who can pick up new languages quickly and switch between them facilely, but for me it is more difficult.  I haven't tried learning a new language in perhaps 5 years, but this week I backed into one