Yeah, I think that's fair. It seems like a tradeoff to me.
Its a tradeoff, but its certainly not a "good" one.
My point is, if things will ever "break", now is the time it should break when Julia is still in its 10-year wave. Doing so later will most certainly be bad for adoption.
Look at SciPy compared to other libraries in that ecosystem, and you'd see how people love "stableness".
Julia is great, but for an outsider, "1.0x" still means the language isn't fully matured yet.
Go, Rust and Clojure are examples of other languages that are 1.x. Clojure has been around 13 years since its 1.0 release, go 10 years and Rust 7 years.
None of them are near any 2.x releases and adoption has not been hampered by a lack of 2.x release.
I would rather say it has been a strength of these communities to deliberately keep the languages at 1.x and at what point in time they transitioned from 0.x to 1.x.
Other languages may also use version numbers differently (e.g. Java), so a superficial look at the major version number only is not a good reason to hold off any adoption.
Julia is in a different class I think.
Each time "JULIA" is mentioned, "PYTHON" gets mentioned as well. It's like the RONALDO AND MESSI OF SOCCER. They both go hand in hand.
Julia is contrasted with Python everytime, and just so you know, the survey from Julia since its inception shows that its greatest users base are from PYTHON.
So yes, you're all right - but I'm only looking at it from the JULIA-PYTHON world, not just software in general.
Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink.
Hide child comments as well
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
A fresh approach to technical computing.