I just skimmed a bit through, in my view it’s quite subjective:
It’s quite surprising to talk about scientific machine learning in Julia but not mention ChainRules.jl, DifferentiationInterface.jl, Enzyme.jl, …
In present year, Julia users have mostly moved away from improving the Julia language and are now
more focused on developing libraries for specific projects. With love, we argue the Julia community
has moved on too quickly. The state of machine learning is rapidly changing, and Julia has the
potential to address many of the pain points in the community.
Also: how is the Base language connected to state of machine learning? Neither Jax, PyTorch, etc. are base language Python features but instead independent libraries which appeared decades later. Development is much faster in packages than in the base language. Hence Julia tried to move out code from Base to independent packages. Same is true for Python.
Julia’s lack of software engineering-centric features, lackluster debugging infrastructure, subpar in-
dustry adoption, its “rivalry” with Jax, and insufficient interopt all bottleneck further adoption
I don’t really see how JAX is much better in those? JAX runs on windows with GPUs? JAX has a better debugger?
Overall, for me the paper does not really provide a comprehensive overview around machine learning and especially details about automatic differentiation are definitely lacking.