What's bad about Julia?
I really like Julia, and also get the sense that the community is a little young and unsettled in some ways.  The biggest way I&#x27;ve seen this manifest is in terms of a total lack of decent documentation for reputable, well known projects.  For example, there&#x27;s this trend in the Julia community of putting little clever puns in the github package description.  Okay I&#x27;m not trying to rain on anyone&#x27;s parade and I appreciate humor but when I&#x27;m looking for packages that little github description area is critical.  Maybe save the puns for the readme doc?  Beyond that, it&#x27;s frustrating to find core libraries with absolutely zero API documentation or with totally outdated&#x2F;incomplete&#x2F;misleading docs.<p>I&#x27;m not all that mad about it or anything so I won&#x27;t point fingers. I just find it to be out of touch and mostly just a buzzkill.  In the past when considering investing my time and energy in building a project in Julia, I&#x27;ve found it frustrating to have to do all this guesswork to get a sense for where critical packages are at and what their limitations are.<p>So from an optimistic angle, I think this probably reflects the fact that there are quite a few researchers writing Julia packages, which is really cool.  There are some awesome cutting edge techniques implemented as Julia packages.  I don&#x27;t think researchers should be off the hook for maintaining crappy packages, but I do think it takes some higher level thinking to cultivate good tools and collective habits around this stuff.  For whatever reason, this is evidently challenging for the Julia community.<p>I hope that some of the culture and tooling around documentation and package maintenance gets more mature over the next few years.  If anyone knows about efforts to improve documentation in the Julia ecosystem, I&#x27;d love to hear about them.