When you accuse a lot of people of "nasty arrogance", I think it's a good idea to read your own posts and try to weed out examples of the same.
You use some pretty harsh and condescending terms as you dismiss a topic quite a few people are enthusiastic about. Is that really productive? What do you get out of it?
You also make some strange technical remarks. Julia does not allow "arbitrary subclassing" (or typing). It doesn't allow subtyping at all, except for of abstract types. In fact, composition is the preferred approach in Julia, and frequently held up as preferable to inheritance in general.
As for your preference that it's better to have good performance for only some selected parts of the language, in stead of good performance in general, that seems so idiosyncratic that I'd like a better explanation. It's hard to tell if you are serious.
You use some pretty harsh and condescending terms as you dismiss a topic quite a few people are enthusiastic about. Is that really productive? What do you get out of it?
You also make some strange technical remarks. Julia does not allow "arbitrary subclassing" (or typing). It doesn't allow subtyping at all, except for of abstract types. In fact, composition is the preferred approach in Julia, and frequently held up as preferable to inheritance in general.
As for your preference that it's better to have good performance for only some selected parts of the language, in stead of good performance in general, that seems so idiosyncratic that I'd like a better explanation. It's hard to tell if you are serious.