+1
I too really like the consistency and readability of Mathematica.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 6:43 AM François Fayard <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to talk about naming convention. I think it's fine to have
> short names in a langage with few keywords such as C (memcpy), but a
> langage such as Julia that wants to be also high level with a huge standard
> library needs convention because the langage might become very large. I
> find the convention used by Mathematica the best ever made. Nothing is
> shortened except a few exceptions and consistent use of CamlCase. On the
> other hand, Matlab is probably one of the worst thing that happen in terms
> of naming: no consistency at all! I suspect that Cleve Moler who started
> Matlab not used LAPACK but also the Fortran 77 naming convention which was
> only there only for technical reasons ;-)
>
> I've seen that the naming convention for function in Julia looks like the
> same as in Python: everything must be lowercase, and don't use underscore.
> Let's look at different naming conventions, the first one being the one
> used by Julia.
>
> 1) daysinmonth()
> 2) daysInMonth()
> 3) days_in_month()
>
> I find the first one the most difficult to read. I tend to prefer the last
> one, but the second one is also easy to read. The fact that Julia uses the
> first one and the fact that many names are shortened, makes reading code
> with functions you've never seen a pain. For instance reading a name
> "iso..." my mind does not understand if we at talking about a function that
> returns a Bool ("is" suggests that) or something that has been standardised
> (ISO). Using the second naming convention would make things easier. Also it
> would prevent people using underscores as we have in the standard library
> without any clear reason.
>
> I don't find any disadvantage for the second naming convention over the
> first one. So why do people use the first one?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
