Found a few (energy and pharma) I've heard of who aren't in the already mentioned "finance bro" category, or academia - but those are singular use-cases. The fact that the list of notable use-cases is small enough to be worth compiling is, itself, telling.

Edit: To be clear; when I first heard about Julia I was excited and a bit sad it had come into my awareness a bit too late for me to use in my PhD. However, since then I see it come up more and more, yet the core UX things which were regarded as "not quite as good as python" seem to persist. Some things need to change in order for the language to get over the next hump of acceptance, and I feel like a community who are very hostile to outside opinions is a major one.

Ah, what an excellent catch-22! If you don't have a list of notable use cases, people claim that there are no serious users. If you make a list of notable use cases, then the fact that you compiled such a list is "telling". Debunking oft-repeated falsehoods is significantly different from being "hostile to outside opinions".

Is there a list of Python users somewhere? What about Fortran?

You are exemplifying one of the points from my original post quite well though, so thanks, I guess.

For others who might not know you as a co-creator of the language with a strong financial interest in its success, don't you think your comments on Julia ought to carry a disclaimer?

Your group have clearly done fantastic work, but having such centralised (and "vocal") management makes it feel more like Julia is a start-up whose product is a language, rather than a language which a spin-out company is commercialising a bit. I trust the former far less than the latter.

Why would mentioning facts require a disclaimer? I mean, unless you embrace the genetic fallacy?

> Is there a list of Python users somewhere?

Yes! You can find them all over. https://brainstation.io/career-guides/who-uses-python-today#.... for example. People compile incomplete lists for the answer of "do people use X?" It's never expected that the lists are complete. This is the most bizarre comment thread I've ever read.

> but having such centralised (and "vocal") management makes it feel more like Julia is a start-up whose product is a language, rather than a language which a spin-out company is commercialising a bit

Okay... then just read a different source? There's tons of these things online. Stefan just referenced the one he knows the URL of because he's involved with it. But here's a random one. https://www.datacamp.com/blog/the-rise-of-julia-is-it-worth-.... Each package ecosystem tends to have a list, like SciML has a (very incomplete, probably less than 2% listed here according to analytics) list https://sciml.ai/showcase/. There's lists all over.

I used Julia in production on my old job. My friend uses it in her current job in production (they have a product based on Julia). Neither of those companies are on the list.

I doubt any list you'll get is complete. It's more a list of examples

Of course it's not complete. Everyone here understands that, except the person making these ludicrous "points".

This one fascinated me a few months ago when I came across it: https://juliahub.com/case-studies/lincoln-labs/

>The fact that the list of notable use-cases is small enough to be worth compiling is, itself, telling.

lol, no.

In one of the recent JuliaCon presentations I caught that ASML uses Julia for their telemetry in production. Seems weird to use Julia for telemetry specifically, until you understand that for ASML telemetry involves heavy physics modelling. Lenses, robotics arms, chemical reactions, lasers, it's all part of what "telemetry" is at ASML.

You have to understand, random commenters in HN have very high standards, not like those amateurs at ASML /s