| I've always viewed Julia as a language for scientific computing professionals [1]. The article pronounces Julia's death only based on popularity relative to other languages. Yet, it's not clear what the author is comparing it to. The comparisons I see are MATLAB and FORTRAN, to which Julia seems to stand third in TIOBE Index [2] that the author is using. The author doesn't seem to focus on this. The author mentions > Julia’s target user is harder to define. I have struggled with this while writing Learn Julia. I wonder if it may not be the case that the author has developed his own notion of what Julia ought to be. And I'll agree that Julia may have failed his grand vision to displace large parts of Python, but I do not think that that vision is based in reality. Python users that want to use frameworks written in other, faster languages (like C++) will forever continue to use Python and enjoy the vast libraries that it offers which aren't centred around scientific computing. [1]: There seems to be a list on https://juliacomputing.com/. Arguably their needs might be very different than the author's. But I can't say because the article's arguments are not based on technical shortcomings. [2]: In the TIOBE Index (as a proxy for popularity) MATLAB gets 1.04%, Fortran 0.83%, and Julia 0.41% (GNU's Octave, the main FOSS Matlab competitor, is nowhere to be seen). I do not know what these percentages mean though https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ |