Agreed. A relevant excerpt: > But for end users throwing together a 100 line script for a data analysis? I don't think that this crowd will actually see as muc

Agreed. A relevant excerpt: > But for end users throwing together a 100 line script for a data analysis? I don't think that this crowd will actually see as much of a difference between other scripting languages if the packages in the other languages they are using are sufficiently performant (this isn't always true, but let's assume it is). To people who aren't "pros" in the language, it will probably look like it just has a different syntax. It will be a little faster than vectorized code in other languages if code is in type-stable functions, but most of the differences a user will notice will come from the mixture of features and performance of packages. Because of this, I am not sure if marketing the features of the language is actually the best way to approach the general audience. The general audience will be convinced Julia is worthwhile only by the package offering. (For context, this was after several hundred words of compelling, detailed examples of Julia's language-level advantages). EDIT: the author then goes on to claim > that "lack of packages" isn't really a problem with the ecosystem: you can find a great package that does what you're looking for. with several examples, pointing to poor discoverability, uniqueness, distribution and branding. He also recommends more practical, use-case-specific how-to guides.