[balencpp]

Besides the 'correctness' issues, all of the issues that blogpost mentioned were fixed back then ASAP. Most of it arise from the usage of @inbounds, which to be fair, the documentation clearly tells you its usage is unsafe. Is it bad there were unrealized bugs in the official example? Yes. Did it get fixed immediately once reported? Yes. Mistakes happen everywhere else. I don't like the stance the blogpost took at all, and I find it quite misleading as it falsely implies Julia is bug-ridden. Personally, the number of bugs I've faced in Python is far more than the ones I've run into in Julia.

[tastyminerals2]

It's not the fact that the bugs were fixed. It would be really strange to revisit this article and find out that they weren't, right? It's the fact that the author has spent years working with the language and published several libraries on the way. His article contains other links to similar experiences other ppl had with the language. There is another informative JAX vs Julia article there (by Patrick Kidger) as well. It's just enough material for all kinds of doubt and this really sucks for the language. I simply cannot image a situation where Julia will be seriously considered in a commercial company after this, not in prod. And what's worse, anyone who will fancy the idea of investing into a new language will have a hard time justifying its worth. After all, when you read about several months of hunting for bugs, you definitely don't want to be that person.

[davidwritesbugs]

>And what's worse, anyone who will fancy the idea of investing into a new language will have a hard time justifying its worth. After all, when you read about several months of hunting for bugs, you definitely don't want to be that person.

Yea, that would be me. Julia seemed like a good fit but I don't want to spend months bug hunting someone else's language