Hi,
I am also very enthousiastic about Julia, and I completely agree with Sebastien, regarding the need to build a library first redoing all the interface that Dynare is currently providing.
There is currently an amazing effort in the opensource world to build a new stack of scientific software and it would be great if economists can be part of it. It would be a also be a good occasion to raise the bar in terms of efficiency, openness, reproducibility in computational economics. It is also a very good occasion to get new people involved in that collaborative effort so I don't think that having completely ready and running software would be a good short term goals.
I've been coding in Python in a while, and was very interesting to see that the Julia and Python scientific communities are collaborating a lot (
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/numfocus/NmFQxVPiqvY). For instance, they share many infrastructure tools like, GIT, LLVM and experiment with similar computational ideas. Then there have been an active collaboration in making a bidirectional bridge between the two languages, called IJulia which also allows Julia to be used with the widely used IPython notebooks. This solution has already replaced the old web-repl included in Julia and if we believe this thread, it is even considered to write doctests for Julia. That makes Julia a viable solution to write computational code now, while retaining all the existing python libraries.
Here is an experiment that mixes Python, Julia and economics :
http://nbviewer.ipython.org/urls/raw.github.com/albop/jolo/master/Solving%20RBC%20with%20Julia.ipynb. It uses the python dolo library to parse a .yaml file and produce a .jl model file representing the RBC model. This is similar to the way that Dynare produces the _static and _dynamic files from the modfile. Then all solution code (collocation/time-iteration) is implemented in Julia. Plots are made using the excellent matplotlib python library. Everything uses completely free software.
Pablo