In many ways, I think we're actually in agreement :p Free. Quick. Interactive. 4 lines. Done. What's the value proposition of Julia compared to that? Now y

In many ways, I think we're actually in agreement :p Free. Quick. Interactive. 4 lines. Done. What's the value proposition of Julia compared to that? Now you can argue that Julia will allow better type specification and specialisation, etc, etc. But that's not what's valued or used in your example. Now, my mindset/domain has to engage with such, and i freak out at the implicit-ness/assumptions inherent in such code, especially with some of R's additional design choices. In my mind, having code that crashes/errors out when something ambiguous/dangerous is encountered in your example a "good thing". But that's not what's valued in the above example. And while Julia would allow someone to program in such a way as to specialise or raise these errors and concerns, what is valued is the ability to not think about them. And if you don't think about them, or even as a library designer, if you want to program in such a way that your user primarily doesn't want to think about them, then you're effectively very close to reinventing/reimplementing a new "R", with all its costs and benefits. I'm just making this observation explicit, even though I actually do value the things the Julia crowd seems to value, but I'm not sure I'm in the majority, and I'm not sure you can push that down into the libraries without exposing concerns most users don't want to be exposed to.