https://discourse.julialang.org/t/what-dont-you-like-about-j...
Hope the uh... co-creator warrants enough merit as a source.
Whereas in the 6 month old keynote the same Jeff says there is no plan for breaking changes and hence no 2.0 is planned.
So Julia will remain stable. And maybe we get interfaces (or rather traits) at some point in the 1.x release family.
I don't stay plugged in beyond reading the changelog whenever a new version comes out, so I didn't know that bit about the keynote. I've noticed as well that the Julia community produces an absolutely extraordinary amount of conference talks/video content, I don't have the time for the finer details.
I've also noticed a distinct and crucial lack of long-term vision for Julia from the co-founders. I've also read some dramatic (unverified) claims that I won't repeat here about one of them. Frankly, I think a better group of people could be assembled to steward the language and its ecosystem, but I don't see much chance of that happening. Julia exists in a weird little place where being terrible to read and maintain doesn't matter as long as it lives up to its promises of being very, very fast, in most of the applications it is used for. That's all well and good, but you don't build a solid foundation for a community to really depend on that tool for bedrock tasks.
I've been unfortunate enough to read some .jl code in '22, and it was dreadful. I truly don't understand how multiple dispatch makes anybody's life easier, it's an absolute nightmare of unmaintainable code that calls any of dozens or hundreds of methods, the performance of the entire application essentially dependent on whether or not that type is stable and of course, there's no way to know that without reading the definition of the unknown method that gets called.
Personally, I have my eyes peeled for github.com/exaloop/codon for higher performance stuff with Python. It's already an order of magnitude faster than pypy for most cases, and equally more usable for practical work than Julia, imo.
Anyhow, when it's all said and done, there's a lot of computing being done and a lot of money changing hands and so forth. All's well that ends well, despite never really being done well. /shrug
"Interfaces are a really common topic of discussion and I think at this point we’re determined to do something about it in julia 2.0 (if it requires breaking changes)."
This means we really want a solution for interfaces and if we had a good enough design for interfaces that would require 2.0, they are important enough that it could be worth breaking existing code (and releasing a 2.0 with interfaces). However there still isn't a plan for interfaces (breaking or non-breaking).
Otherwise, further correction would be wasting my time.
