> If what determines the value of a language libraries (which makes no sense to me at all, but let's play your game), then it is one more argument against Python

The fact that you can use those nice numerical and scientific libraries from the language that had also tremendous amount of nice libraries from other domains, wide and good IDE support, is very well documented and has countless tutorials and books available... is an argument against that language? Because you can easily use Fortran code in Fortran?

Nice.

> You don't need FFI to use a Fortran library from Fortran

Wow. Didn't know that.

> And no, many other scripting languages have wrappers,

Always less complete, less documented, with less teaching materials available etc.

But sure, many other languages have wrappers. Julia for example wraps Python API.

> and no, scientific computing is not restricted to ML

Never said it is. I don't do ML, by the way.

> You are making disparaging and hyperbolic claims about hyperbolic claims without proper attribution, and when asked for source, you cry foul

Yeah, yeah. My claims on marketing like "Julia writes like Python, runs like C" are hyperbolic and require explicit citation, even though everyone that had any exposure to this language knows such and similar catch-phrases.

Look, you like Julia, good for you. Have fun with it.