Some people would disagree with that
I would also argue that the large open source Julia packages are also great examples of Julia "in prod".
Just highlighting what I think is a significant con in a language with many pros!
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.10277.pdf
http://proceedings.mlr.press/v37/regier15.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.00113.pdf
I had to go so far as to read the project Github page to find them.
Whose opinion do you want, the Pope? Would a divine sanction be enough for you?
There's no reason Juno or any other IDE couldn't display the output of a static analyser inline, or allow you to command-click a function call to go to the site of the exact function being called, or show a list of alternatives, and so on.
Give Julia and its IDEs a few years to improve and you might find it much better suited to large projects. I wouldn't consider Java any good for large projects either, if it didn't have the excellent IDE support it now enjoys.
When you start building out a project, it's easy to keep track and debug if multiple dispatch starts failing (i.e. <any> type starts spreading everywhere and Julia slows to Python like speeds).
In medium-to-large projects, it becomes extremely cumbersome to manage this. It's doable, but adds a layer of complexity management to projects that simply doesn't exist in strictly typed or pure scripting languages.
Of course, you can just decide to explicitly type everything - but the issue here again is the lack of enforcement.
In a nutshell: Julia is great when you're a grad student working mostly by yourself on small scale projects! But not so great in prod.
And there's really no problem with that; that's who the language was designed for!