I feel you’ve missed my point. I was not making a normative statement about how I wish julia was developed, I was talking about how it is developed in practice (at least as far as I can tell – note I am not a core language developer by any means).
I know you’ve made it very clear in other threads how you wish the language development was handled. The reality is that development of the language is highly decentralized, and there is no Czar barking orders and coordinating things according to some master plan.
The language’s development happens much more along the lines of individual people taking on projects that they themselves decide are important for them to work on. These people are often are not deciding to go and put extra effort or attention towards tools they don’t use or care about, even if they think the tool is somehow “important”.
There really does not seem to be much thinking along the lines of
“if we develop ___, ___, and ___, it would have ____ effect on the community and help grow the language user-base”.
At least as far as I can tell, the thinking appears much shorter term, less strategic, and less coordinated than that.
Clearly something has to be done here. The question, given the apparent lack of coordination, is how to we reach some sort of agreement on what should happen, and then how do we make people actually do that thing that there’s some apparent consensus about?