I&#x27;m an enthusiastic julia user, observer and very minor contributor.  IMO a lot of the issues in this constructive rant have been addressed to some extent.  For context, here&#x27;s the previous HN discussion <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=8809422" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=8809422</a><p>Going through the post in order:<p>The stable releases still have some bugs as you would expect in a young language, but 0.4 is now well below my tolerance level.  For a rough idea, I now use julia daily and encounter a bug perhaps once every one or two weeks.  In 0.4 I haven&#x27;t encountered any bug which was a real show stopper and couldn&#x27;t easily be worked around.<p>Testing has gotten a whole heap nicer with a decent test framework in Base (accessible in 0.4 via BaseTestNext.jl).  Testing and package manager integrate in a simple but effective way which really makes the friction for writing a suite of tests for new packages very low, much lower than other languages I&#x27;ve used.  I can&#x27;t speak for actual coverage in Base, but I know it&#x27;s now actually being measured and work has gone into the coverage tools.<p>I&#x27;m going to skip over the complaints about error handling, because others have already responded to this, for example StefanKarpinski&#x27;s post to the julia-users list <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;groups.google.com&#x2F;d&#x2F;msg&#x2F;julia-users&#x2F;GyH8nhExY9I&#x2F;0BznqtD5VJgJ" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;groups.google.com&#x2F;d&#x2F;msg&#x2F;julia-users&#x2F;GyH8nhExY9I&#x2F;0Bzn...</a><p>Consistent benchmarking is currently being addressed, with great work going on at BenchmarkTrackers.jl, and a proper setup with dedicated benchmarking hardware for the language itself.  I don&#x27;t have the depth of knowledge to comment on Dan&#x27;s other complaints regarding skewed benchmarking.<p>Regarding contributing, my experience is that contributions to Base and the runtime by unknowns (myself, say) are generally met with the fair skepticism and good taste that all good maintainers should display.  Sometimes I feel the core devs could do more to encourage new contributors, and the environment can feel slightly hostile when suggesting new features.  I&#x27;m not sure how to entirely avoid this, when a core job of a good maintainer is to say &quot;no&quot; to a lot of poorly considered requests!  Much of the code in Base is still commented in a minimalistic fashion, if at all.  In contrast my experience in contributing to packages has been almost entirely positive, with a lot of excitement and energy leading to some really great code and interactions.<p>With precompliation, slow package load times have really been improved to the extent that they&#x27;re no longer a major hassle, but there&#x27;s still room for improvement here.<p>The real sting in the tail of this blog post is the paragraph about nastiness in the community.  There was a couple of unfortunately worded (though not unambiguously malicious) mails on the julia-users list following Dan&#x27;s post, but the discussion was largely constructive and helpful.  I&#x27;ve no idea about the &quot;private and semi-private communications&quot; and I can only hope things were patched up there.<p>Overall I&#x27;ve found the julia experience almost entirely positive.  It&#x27;s a joy to work with for numerical and statistical problems, and we&#x27;re moving forward at work to get our first major pieces of julia code into production.