Been there done that. I mean you were 16 year old porting to Windows, and speaking from experience?
[EDIT: @Keno is famous enough for Wikipedia, just got accepted there (so there is some justice in this world), so I changed the title here, but nobody will see it as this is a delisted offtopic, and the AIX thread still shows the old title.]
Off-topic: I want to see you get a Wikipedia page (unless you oppose). It as declined, as you’re not notable (I disagree!), as with some of the other guys, mainly known for Julia. I believe you’re notable for other stuff too (e.g. Celeste, and my understanding you were invited to speak to Congress staff on it, right?).
Split out from the original topic, since it’s a side track. As for the Wikipedia page, I saw that (via Google alert). I have no objection to being in Wikipedia, but per WP:COI, I don’t really think it’s up to me anyway. Maybe talk to @logankilpatrick who I see wrote the original draft. I’ve done a bunch of things (Celeste, Flux, rr, the big PINN-GAN, the homomorphic encryption stuff) I think are pretty cool that aren’t listed, but whether or not that makes it Wikipedia worthy isn’t really up to me.
As for the Celeste thing, yeah, The Planetary Society invited us to one of their events that they put on for Congress, but I’m not really sure that’s relevant. Celeste did make a splash in the government world, but mostly on the DOE side, since it showed that these things don’t have to be written in C/C++/Fortran.
They want good sources. The one link I showed here in the thread (you just split off), only says " Julia Computing was invited", not naming you as a speaker. I know Celeste is a big thing, maybe (maybe not) enough to be notable on its own for a WP page. But I view it, fairly I think as a separate project from Julia, while implemented with Julia only. The question is really, or you notable enough for those other projects, one of many authors on one of three Celese papers. And I did find coverage from outside sources naming Celeste, but only from Julia Computing where your name appears.
Basically, “notability” for Wikipedia is defined as “reliable independent sources have written about you” (where “reliable sources” are things like major newspapers and magazines, as opposed to self-published sources like blog posts).
Well, that’s the nature of the game. People write about the work, not the people :). As for the Planetary Society event, we were invited to present, but since it’s in DC, my colleague Andrew Claster went rather than me traveling.
Re Celeste, maybe any of these sources are better:
However, I don’t think there are really any sources that specifically about me (other than maybe the Forbes feature). That said, I don’t really have much of an interest of personally wandering into a Wikipedia edit fight - I still remember when the Julia article kept getting deleted for lack of notability . I also don’t think Wikipedia really applies their guidelines all that consistently, but w/e. If you want to go ahead with this, I think the only thing to do is to write the best article you can, but if the editors decide it lacks notability, then oh well. It’ll still be there as a draft and can be resubmitted whenever a notable enough source decides to write something about me :). I certainly don’t have any plans to stop doing things worth writing about .
. I also don’t think Wikipedia really applies their guidelines all that consistently, but w/e. If you want to go ahead with this, I think the only thing to do is to write the best article you can, but if the editors decide it lacks notability, then oh well. It’ll still be there as a draft and can be resubmitted whenever a notable enough source decides to write something about me :). I certainly don’t have any plans to stop doing things worth writing about 
.