> Almost all of those 'correctness flaws' are bugs in packages that weren't interfacing with each-other correctly. Everything has bugs and correctness problems,

> Almost all of those 'correctness flaws' are bugs in packages that weren't interfacing with each-other correctly. Everything has bugs and correctness problems, but it may be that Julia users run into them more often because they compose packages in novel ways very often. I agree with this. Yuri's post requires a bit of Julia experience to understand the context of it, that much of it is about drop-in combinations of packages and types that one wouldn't even attempt in many other languages. Julia allows you to do that and makes it programmatically easy, which has significant benefits. But it also requires work on the implementers' side to get right. > But we also have very rigorous testing infrastructure and a community that cares deeply about these things and moves very fast to fix them. Not sure how much I agree with this. If you're talking about the language itself, sure. But a lot of the libraries don't have extensive testing infrastructures, especially not the kind Julia obviously needs based on the above, with beyond-the-expected-usecase tests. Maintanence of packages varies a lot, with the median being on the slower side. There's definitely "a community that cares deeply about these things", we just need more of it.