[jbezanson]

I'm not sure what to make of this. Yuri is great and I'll certainly miss having him in the Julia community. Yes, of course there are bugs. We work on fixing them all the time. If there are just too many for you, or we are too slow at fixing them for you, then OK I understand you might walk away.

With these kinds of posts (and the reactions to them) lots of issues tend to get conflated. For example there are issues with OffsetArrays because some people write code assuming indexes start at 1. Starting at 0 wouldn't fix that. A static type system wouldn't fix that; most static type systems don't check array bounds. Are we supposed to un-register the OffsetArrays package? Should we disallow overloading indexing? Personally I have told people not to use `@inbounds` many times. We could remove it, but those who want the last drop of performance would not be too happy. The only path I see is to fix the bugs.

> They accept the existence of individual isolated issues, but not the pattern that those issues imply.

I admit, I do not see the pattern allegedly formed by these issues. Of course, static types do remove a whole category of issues, but "switch to static types" is not really a practical request. There are other things you can do, like testing, but we do a LOT of testing. I really do not mean to downplay Yuri's experience here, I am just not sure what to take away other than that we should work even harder on bugs and quality.

[ThenAsNow]

I've worked on large engineering projects in physical disciplines. When I am the customer, I often bring in a group of independent experts to review the design products. Often these experts provide inputs that are not 100% usable in the form they're provided. One may have to disentangle their conflation of related-but-not-the-same issues, or ignore the specific solutions they propose, etc.

That being said, I have learned the hard way not to ignore or trivialize these review inputs, even if they are not immediately actionable as-provided. Users and reviewers are really good at figuring out weak areas or flaws even if they can't articulate the solutions, fully unentangle related issues, or do all the generalization or abstraction that would make those issues easier to address. There is usually some truth underlying the negative feedback.

The article looks to potentially be an example of an expert review in the above vein. If you are able to take a step back, you might find the HN discussion on this submission to provide further inputs to help figure out how any of this should be channeled into language, practice, and ecosystem improvements. Certainly there is more to work with here than little "to take away other than that we should work even harder on bugs and quality."