You might be right that Julia's sky high ambitions make it seem like a failure no matter what it does. I mean, it could have strived for just being a pleasant d

You might be right that Julia's sky high ambitions make it seem like a failure no matter what it does. I mean, it could have strived for just being a pleasant dynamic language with a fast amortized running time, and then it would have succeeded in 2018. But is it not better to both achieve you mediocre goals and also have extremely ambitious goals that may still be achieved, than merely having mediocre goals? I don't really agree that Julia right now doesn't have anything to show for its huge amibitions. In my opinion it's already the best language for science by quite a large margin. I understand it still lacks some tooling, reliability and deployment options to be attractive for many industrial clients (though Julia is already making inroads in industry - I have an old friend from college who uses Julia in production). It's also understandable that some people used it and found the latency unacceptable. The thing is - there is no reason to believe that tooling, reliability and deployment options won't come around. The stuff is being built. It's just happening "too" slowly right now.