I strongly recommend listening to others experiences and not forwarding some conversion metric for the languages share holders. Maybe there's a lot of wisdom in smart people being vocal enough to say "yea no" about it. It's not like it's one person...
I don't have any financial interest in Julia so I'm a bit confused about the reference to "share holders." I'm just a user.
I'm sure there are lots of smart people who found that the language didn't suit their needs. there are also lots of smart people who love using Julia. both things can be true at the same time.
There are no language share holders, and note that this account was created an hour ago just to post vague nonspecific gripes about Julia.
There are some real issues in the ecosystem. Specifically there is a high proportion of “gradware” because much like other scientific languages there is a high proportion of graduate students doing their projects and then moving on.
The language also encourages relying on packages which can break. But juliaup makes this easy enough to solve by downgrading.
They dictate what their employees are paid to work on, there are no VC investments in The Julia Programming Language
It’s true that MIT and a few other organizations have more influence than others simply because they employ more developers with time/scope to work on the language. Just like every programming language.
But this becomes less true all the time. And most of the direction that is “paid for” is an unadulterated good: JuliaC ahead of time compilation has been requested for over a decade and has made enormous progress.
I have submitted plenty of core contributions, none of which were directed or paid for by VC. the language contributions come from those sufficiently motivated to contribute. if you want to change the direction, you need to do some work.
