> I don't know where you got these papers but you clearly got an awful sampling and I don't think you're giving computer vision a fair evaluation.

I disagree, I saw such an awful number of bugs in ML codes going with papers that I now take for granted that there is a bug somewhere and hope that it does not impact the concept being evaluated.

(here having everyone use python, a language that will try its best to run what you throw at him, feels like a very bad idea)