I understand both camps but I believe, these are superficial problems. It's like worrying about the comfort of seat in the operating room of a nuclear plant.
Exactly. I actually find Julia's ecosystem (not the language) way more approachable than Python's.
In Python, most libraries are big monoliths. Whereas in Julia, libraries are small and composable. Furthermore, it's the same language all the way down.
Python's libraries are superb, but the learning curve to develop (not to use them) is really steep.
Python's story for package development is a mess compared to Julia. If you know what you're doing you can make a new Julia package in the general registry with unit tests, CI, and code coverage in about 30 minutes.
To contribute to an existing repository, you can ]dev the package to download the git repository, @edit a function to open the source in an editor, and push the changes to a PR in about 10 minutes. This makes it much easier for package users to turn into package developers.
I've contributed to a bunch of Julia libraries that if I still used python, I wouldn't have contributed to the equivalent python library because contributing to Julia packages is at least an order of magnitude easier.
You're annoyed to the point of overreaction I'd say. I assume julia's devs use symbols that are culturally set already. Not just random glyphs for no good reason.
I've seen this in math, I come the dev land around java peak, where it was a holy trait to write runComputationThatIsMaybeSafeOverArguments(...), because that's where they though information was. In math they lived in the opposite side of things.. names were few and concision was more important. Also structural thinking made names really unimportant, mostly redundancy and waste of time, the domain and properties were.
Sure, just try to properly document what it does. There are some characters that are easily confused at first glance even for native speakers, so be sure to use some common sense.
