A good response might entail: what is the core team is currently prioritizing, why, and how will this feedback help guide those efforts?
Also, take heed of the number of occurrences of the following statement, which I support: > "community is hostile to feedback"
It's open source software. And despite the fact that other users have referenced the recent valuation of Julia Computing, that doesn't change the fact that Julia is open source software.
Of all the complaints I've seen in all the Julia posts in HN -- how many complainers want to pick up the compiler and help fix it? Reminds me of a Linus Torvalds quote.
Upset at compile-time latency, REPL-based workflows, lack of static compilation, etc? -- please come join us and make it better. In fact, I guarantee that working in the guts of a system like this will endow you with an incredible set of skills -- and it is possible with Julia to do serious work with the compiler, and learn things that will make your head spin (abstractly).
Yes, we want the best language and compiler possible -- yes, there are issues right now. Yes, there are plans to fix these issues. But ... there are not enough talented, smart people working on this stuff. And there is enough low hanging fruit that a bit of effort can have a huge impact on the community.
Try replacing the word 'customer' with either 'user' or 'developer.'
A programming language is a product that is packaged, promoted, and distributed by means of open source to a target market of users for a price of $0. All the same rules apply whether we like it or not.
I think a big part of that is because DS rarely involves writing fast numeric kernels or hot inner loops, i.e. user code that needs to do numeric stuff quickly. This is in large part because very large organizations have poured untold millions into libraries that already handle this (e.g Spark).
In domains where this has not happened or that have more bespoke requirements (e.g. modelling and simulation), something like Julia is far more compelling. That's not to say it's not viable, but unless more practitioners start feeling stuck in a rut [1] I don't see the mindshare changing dramatically.