Yes - I think there are a lot of overshort names in some of the Julia packages/modules... for example, why is it readdlm, and not read_delim?
On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 9:14:12 AM UTC-4, Tracy Wadleigh wrote: > > I too like underscores. The thing that bugs me is that they aren't always > used. I'm not a fan of conventions that involve judgment calls without an > especially compelling reason. > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 9:07 AM Scott Jones <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Umm... the style guide for Julia says *to* use underscore for longer >> names, *not* camelcase: >> >> >> - modules and type names use capitalization and camel case:module >> SparseMatrix, immutable UnitRange. >> - functions are lowercase (maximum() >> >> <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/collections/#Base.maximum> >> , convert() >> <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/base/#Base.convert>) >> and, when readable, with multiple words squashed together (isequal() >> <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/base/#Base.isequal>, >> haskey() >> >> <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/collections/#Base.haskey>). >> When necessary, use underscores as word separators. Underscores are also >> used to indicate a combination of concepts (remotecall_fetch() >> >> <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/parallel/#Base.remotecall_fetch> >> as >> a more efficient implementation of remotecall(fetch(...))) or as >> modifiers (sum_kbn() >> <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/arrays/#Base.sum_kbn> >> ). >> - conciseness is valued, but avoid abbreviation (indexin() >> >> <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/collections/#Base.indexin> >> rather >> thanindxin()) as it becomes difficult to remember whether and how >> particular words are abbreviated. >> >> Personally, I think the Julia style guide gets it right... also, there >> have even been studies that show that words separated by _ are easier to >> read (>20% faster to read!) than words with no spaces and camel cased... >> >> Scott >> >> On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 6:43:44 AM UTC-4, François Fayard 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? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
