Except the long keyword sugestions which is doomed to be ignored. I have two more suggestions for Julia:
1: Dynamic Typing: I actually think dynamic typing is not necessary if it influence the running performance or it bring messes during run time while undiscovered during development, I almost never run into a situation when dynamic typing is indispensable. It is like a useless function of allowing the car to explode when driving.
2: No class method: compared with the first one, this one really got me. Cause dynamic typing is there, I can just not using it, maybe someone like it. But this one, I cannot stand. I agree, that scientific computing have many interactions between two objects, which will have influences on both. And writing these influences in any of the class will make the code looks clumsy. But there are many situations I want to define some properties for an object, the properties of itself, forexample, when stimuli are added on, what reaction or change will this object have, and I may change the stimuli-reaction relationship function during the scientific research. There got be methods for that kind, so that I can maintain the code better. This is only one reason, the other reason is: when so many programming paradigm is available and mature today, why Julia, the new born advanced language, stick to one paradigm? Not even opening the possibility of others. Is there any internal difficulties of doing these?