i finished reading the types section of the julia documentation Types · The Julia Language. it really, in my opinion, is quite bad. i appreciate that a great effort must have gone into making that chapter and i have really been trying to like it. but it plain simply is not a very attractive disposition; i believe it does not produce the kind of understanding and excitement in the reader that would correspond to the merits of julias type system; a system which really has great practical utility. that is a shame. the user should come out of reading with an urge to try out the neat features, which he understands, which he can see the practical utility from. as stated above, i think you should not underestimate the impact on user adoption from non-engaging and directly confusing documentation. the julia language by itself merits a much much higher growth rate than what i can discern has been the case over its lifespan, through google trends, redmonk ranking, tiobe ranking, general discussions. as it is now, big parts of the documentation seems like it was written by the writer to his audience of peers (who already fully understand the contents): to be academically solid, principled, “exhaustive”. the needs of the average reader are quite different. he needs examples, contextualisation via examples. he does not need abstraction nor completeness. not even when it comes to something like “abstract types” since, in fact, nothing is abstract about “abstract types”, they are just a different kind of animal, any bit just as practical as an Int64. the user needs to understand how this and that works , again, via example, via sketch, via analogy. not via abstract musings. forza julia.