I understand your concerns better now. Here&#x27;s my input for what it&#x27;s worth:<p>(1) List comprehensions are a mess and a recognized problem with the existing compiler. There&#x27;s a lot of work that&#x27;s been done to fix the erratic typing of comprehensions. As such, I am sure that this concern will be resolved before 1.0. I would bet that it will be resolved much sooner than that.<p>(2) I don&#x27;t really believe that scientists can&#x27;t learn that Array(Int, 1) and Array(Float64, 1) do different things. This seems like a place where education can be very effective.<p>(3) Julia&#x27;s error messages are indeed generally poor. I&#x27;m hopeful that we&#x27;ll see a push towards Elm-quality error messages in the future: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;elm-lang.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;compilers-as-assistants" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;elm-lang.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;compilers-as-assistants</a><p>(4) The core problem with your fixed size array example is that you&#x27;re building it on top of the wrong primitives. Julia&#x27;s Array isn&#x27;t a suitable data structure for building up fixed-length arrays: Julia&#x27;s Array is more like C++ std::vector than like C&#x27;s arrays. To build a real fixed length array, you need to build it on top of lower-level primitives. Many people are already working on that problem.<p>Putting it all together, I think your concerns all reflect real problems with the language. You may be better off waiting until Julia 1.0 comes out.