First of all, great content. I’m glad there’s an up-to-date and clear description of the arguments to use Julia written for its largest audience. That said, to me it does come off quite zealous, and I believe that you would convince more people to use Julia if the language used in the doc was tempered a little.
For example, you begin the disclaimer with the word “clearly”, which sets the tone for the rest of the doc. The same disclaimer then says that “these are opinions, but they’re based on facts”, but at one point your “proof of claims” is one of Julia’s creators speaking at a Julia conference about why Julia is so great. I don’t think many who aren’t already agreeing with you will be convinced by this.
Additionally, I think when talking about advanced topics, especially for a relatively lay audience, it’s important to give, or link to, definitions of concepts that you talk about. There are a few places where scientists might get lost or not understand why something is an advantage because they’re not familiar with the concept e.g. what do you mean by “innovative progress such as automatically understanding when statements end”.
Idk, I just feel a little sidelined when reading this from a Python perspective, as if the Julia community thinks Python sucks and I’m dumb for using it when there are many reasons why one might prefer using Python. This comes partly from the tone e.g. your claim that the document is your opinion is not necessarily substantiated by your use of the phrase “thankfully, Julia is objectively the best tool for…” :')
I hate to be a bummer. I think it’s truly amazing that this document is available and I respect the amount of sustained effort that goes into writing such a document. That said, take what I say with a grain of salt: I have a track record for this kind of post 