I am surprised. I mean, go to any research lab of a company of your choice and look how they work:
- there are lab workers handling different machines, perform measurements etc.
- there are scientists who take the data to develop new things
- there are scientists that have to work parallel to the running production, to do the quality assurance and deal with guarantee cases.
Person class 1 need software that “just works”. Most of them have never seen any program code in their life. They need software with a menu in which they can select the tasks they have to perform (loading/saving a file, creating a plot etc.)
Person class 2 might be interested in the source code, adapt it, write own scripts and libraries. But not at a daily basis. If you develop e.g. a better process for a chemical reaction, you need to evaluate sensor data like temperature. You then just need software that does this job for you and also the job of automatically plotting the data, analyzing it using a pre-trained neuronal network. Or you want to teach a new neuronal network with your sensor data. Then you also need a proper UI that guides you through this.
Person class 3 also need software that “just works”. They have no time to work with program code. They need to perform measurements, generate reports etc.
Julia aims to be a programming language for scientific tasks. So it should also focus on how development and science is done in practice outside of universities.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but saying that serving many thousand lab workers all over the world across all kinds of science is “not a typical use case” sounds arrogant to me.