> there are a number of "flagship" applications that are really pushing the boundary of what Julia can do, but at the same time also need a disproportionate am

> there are a number of "flagship" applications that are really pushing the boundary of what Julia can do, but at the same time also need a disproportionate amount of attention. Disproportionate effort is an obvious sign that hacks to keep such flagships seaworthy are prioritized over a good language and a good library. > Basically, Julia tries very hard to make composability work, even if the authors of the packages that you're composing don't know anything about each other. Typically, programming languages and libraries don't need to "try very hard" because they are designed to be safe and correct, at the cost of curbing ambitious features. > not all implicit assumptions are easily capturable in interfaces. Perhaps there needs to be more explicit documentation around what combinations of packages are "supported". Supporting useful "combinations of packages" isn't a desirable approach to language and library evolution. Implicit assumptions must disappear, either by becoming explicit or by becoming unnecessary; both ways represent genuine progress, not fruitless firefighting.