Actually, the blog post from StaffJoy ( https://blog.staffjoy.com/retro-on-the-julia-programming-language-7655121ea341#.35atllel3) never said that it turned out to be a mistake, in the conclusion they said:
> The Julia language helped to create Staffjoy and turn it into a business, > and for that I am grateful It seemed clear to me that their reason for moving away from Julia was more an issue of Julia not being ready *yet* for the scaling and reliability they needed to provide for their business. People (like the company I consult for) who are using Julia in industry are well aware both of the pros and cons of using Julia in it's current state, we started a good deal later than StaffJoy, and things have been stable enough for us with v0.4.x that the pros have far outweighed the cons up til now (we had needed a number of critical fixes for string performance / correctness, but were able to get those in just before v0.4 was frozen). We are looking forward to being able to use v0.5, with fast anonymous functions, cleaner array syntax, Gallium debugger and C++, and many many other improvements (although the string changes mean we need to be careful not to use Julia's base String type - currently we use ASCIIString/UTF16String for performance reasons), but we aren't at all dependent on it (or v1.0, for that matter). Julia can be great for a small startup, in the case where the features in the current release version are enough for the application (and where you wouldn't be able to simply use some already existing library available in some other language), since you can quickly prototype things, and then turn those prototypes into production code. In our particular case, if we had continued with our original plan of developing in Python, C++, and some C, I really don't think we'd have things nearly so far along. On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 11:23:34 AM UTC-4, John Myles White wrote: > > For industry, it probably means something similar. > > > I really hope people in industry won't act on this date, as it is not > nearly firm enough to bet a business on. We already have people writing > blog posts about how using Julia for their startup turned out to be a > mistake; we really don't need to encourage a new group of people to bet on > something that's not 100% guaranteed. > > Or to use industry language: that date isn't an SLA. > > -- John > > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 7:55:34 AM UTC-7, Chris Rackauckas wrote: >> >> This information is hugely beneficial in science/mathematics, especially >> for a PhD. It means that if you start a project in Julia now, although >> there will be some bumps for when versions change, the project will likely >> end after v1.0 is released (say 2 years?) and so your code should be stable >> when complete. It could have been 3-5 years for v1.0 (that's actually what >> I thought before reading it), in which case you know your code will be >> broken soon after publication, and so you should think about either not >> publishing the code or putting it to a Github repo with tests and be ready >> for the extra work of updating it. >> >> For industry, it probably means something similar. >> >> It's by no means a guarantee, but as a ballpark it's still extremely >> useful just to know what they have in mind. Since it's so soon, it also >> tells us that the "put the extra stuff in a package" instead of growing >> base mentality is how they are continuing forward (it's the leaner version >> of Julia that they have been pushing with at least v0.5 which gives them >> more mobility), which I think is good and it means I should plan to really >> plug into the package ecosystem, which may not be stable at the v1.0 >> release. >> >> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 7:47:28 AM UTC-7, Isaiah wrote: >>> >>> I knew that. >>>> >>> >>> The goal is 2017, if development community considers it to be ready. >>> >>> I don't mean to be too glib, but I fail to see how any answer is >>> particularly actionable; it is certainly not binding. >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 10:14:24 AM UTC-4, Isaiah wrote: >>>>> >>>>> When it is ready. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Hisham Assi <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I really like Julia (I am using it for my publications & thesis), but >>>>>> I noticed that the versions are not really backward compatible. I am >>>>>> still >>>>>> ok with that, but many other people are waiting for the mature, stable >>>>>> version (1.0) to start using Julia. So, when Julia v1.0 will be >>>>>> released? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>
