On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 1:58:07 AM UTC+2, John Myles White wrote: > > Let's all go back to our core work: writing packages, building > infrastructure and improving Base Julia's functionality. We can discuss > naming conventions when we've got the functionality in place that Julia is > sorely lacking right now. >
I tend to disagree on this, and I still believe that good softwares need consistency in their developing process which includes -1- Coding guidelines: naming conventions, a good error policy -2- Proper unit testing -3- People who takes the lead to enforce that I've just talked to a friend who is one of the main developer of scikit-learn. They have strong coding guidelines, enforced with 2 reviewers for every patch and extended unit testing. Numpy and Scipy seem to use the same policy. Guidelines are a good way to share experience of good and bad habits, and as a new user I just need them. I might have upset people, but it would also have been nice that some main developers acknowledge once that there is a strong gap between usage and the available guideline. This lack of concern seems to have driven away other users ( http://danluu.com/julialang/ ) which makes me think that many of the main Julia developers don't seem to put the 3 points mentioned above in their priority list.
