I was an economist doing econometrics in excel when in 2014 the datasets went being a few 10,000's rows to a few 1,000,000's rows. I found R easiest to learn as a CS outsider because it was less strict about package versions and installation requirements, which made it easier for a beginner to setup and get going. I learned it by googling every little step ('how read in csv', 'how create new column in data.frame' etc) until I had a ~40 line R script that did what I was previously doing by hand in excel. It ran in a few seconds and did what took excel about 10 minutes.

A few years later I wrote an open source economics library in R: https://github.com/stevecondylios/priceR#pricer- It converts between nominal and real prices, converts between 171 currencies, and has a few regex's for pulling numeric data out of text (e.g. salaries out of job descriptions).

Some specific observations regarding the article:

- Comparing computation speed seems a bizarre metric to care about. 6x faster matters on things that take minutes, hours or days, but less so for operations that already run in under 1000ms. Developer experience is usually more important IME.

- The article mentions R library support is superior (which may or may not be true), but it would nice to see the most useful highly-regarded libraries from each language reviewed, or at least mentioned.

- The statement "(Julia) does not have any historical baggage" seems odd since a language doesn't need to be old before people find problems with it. Example from recent HN post: https://yuri.is/not-julia/