Do reviewers tend to reward or dismiss the use of new languages in scientific computing projects?
I tend to get annoyed reading a paper that has its code examples in an atypical language for the area. I don't want to have to learn the language to understand the examples. Unless the paper is about the language and its features or advantages or disadvantages, the example code should be as straightforward to understand as possible, and using a toy or hobby language to provide algorithm examples makes the review harder to do. I'm likely to decline to even do the review if I don't think I'll be able to get through it easily. For example, working in high performance computing (my area), unless the paper is about the advantages of a new run-time system with its own language, I don't want to see some sparse matrix algebra routines in Haskell or Julia since I don't come close to speaking or understanding either of those languages. I'd rather you use a made up psuedo-code description of the implementation and not even provide the actual code unless you're making a specific point about the implementation that's part of the new results.