I haven't read the full discussion, but I think there is a very elegant
solution for these problems (pretty sure it has been mentioned somewhere).
Just internally use very Julian functions which make the best of multiple
dispatch and non abbreviated names.
Then just define a compatibility package, which defines the short,
un-Julian names, which than call the Julian functions.
I think there have been voices for a Matlab compatibility package before ;)
Emancipation from Matlab while coming up with an own, consistent naming
convention, without annoying people coming from Matlab seems to be very
desirable
We just need a hero to create some PRs to make this happen ;)
Am Samstag, 25. April 2015 12:43:44 UTC+2 schrieb François Fayard:
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
