Sound great! Best of luck! --Tim
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:00:37 PM François Fayard wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Thanks for those words which I do appreciate. I was obviously not trying to > push people to do my bidding, but just to find people who thinks those > things do matter. > > I want to work on my own version of Ode.jl. I have some solvers that I > wrote myself in C++ and that I want to adapt to Julia. That would be a good > way to work on an interface that I find clean so people can throw tomatoes > at it ;-) > > I'll have a look at #9493. > > Thanks > > On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 8:23:07 PM UTC+2, Tim Holy wrote: > > François, perhaps we should emphasize some points we agree on: > > 1. There are inconsistencies in julia, both in the language and with the > > "guideline" > > 2. It's probably fair to say that a majority of people actively working on > > julia value code above guidelines > > 3. As you've noted from the lack of prompt action on your complaints, > > there do > > not appear to be hordes of developers who are breathlessly waiting for > > some > > genius on the mailing list to finally point them towards a project they > > can > > work on :-). > > > > This is just life in open source. When you fully accept the implications > > of > > point 3, you'll come to accept that you don't have a tool for bludgeoning > > unpaid developers to do your bidding. But that's what you seem to be > > asking > > for, or at least that's how it may read to some folks. Volunteers do what > > they > > do because of their own internal priorities, and it's actively > > counterproductive to try to convince them to abandon those in preference > > for > > your own. After all, _you're_ not willing to put your money where your > > mouth > > is, so clearly it can't be that important. > > > > If you do decide to jump in, there are issues like #9493 that are a great > > way > > to get your feet wet. Or, start renaming functions and writing > > deprecations to > > improve consistency. _Many_ people have done this before you, including > > "new" > > users, and so there is no reason why it should be beyond your means. > > Finally, > > don't be so sure that people wouldn't appreciate efforts to improve > > process--- > > if you'd followed the growth of julia's testing (first Travis, then > > AppVeyor, > > then Coveralls, hopefully soon rr), I think you'd be a little less worried > > and > > more inclined simply to help speed things along. > > > > Bottom line: time is precious, and responding to long threads on the users > > list is a huge waste unless it results in change. Make it happen! > > > > Best wishes, > > --Tim
