On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 3:10:03 PM UTC-4, Simon Danisch wrote:
>
> 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 ;)
>
That is precisely what I had proposed... I personally can't do anything
about the numerical computing stuff, as that is outside my area of
expertise, but anything I do with database
bindings I want to do in that fashion...
Scott
> 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?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
