I've been trying to take Vega down the same road as you are with your Qwt package Tom, with no external dependencies.
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 9:29:14 AM UTC-4, Tom Breloff wrote: > > Packages: I fall into the camp of "tiny base, curated packages". It > would be great to have an absolutely minimal core julia, and then lots of > "build recipes" for those people that want a matlab-like experience. For > example, JuliaStats could be responsible for compiling a "best of breed" > list of key stats and plotting packages for the "stats recipe", etc. Then > on installation you can say what recipes you'd like to include (maybe it > defaults to most/all of the major recipes so people don't even need to > think about it?). > > Plotting: I agree that simple plotting with minimal dependencies is the > way to go for a standard package. I don't think Gadfly fits that very well > in it's current form... there needs to be simple ways to plot and there > should not be a strong (or any?) dependency on DataFrames. I'm certainly > not recommending that this become standard, but look at the readme of > https://github.com/tbreloff/Qwt.jl > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftbreloff%2FQwt.jl&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFEoRYj6iQAaTuo3PMo8YhP6FR0pw> > > as what I think the basic plotting interface should look like. > > On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 5:12:53 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: >> >> On Sunday, 12 July 2015 22:47:42 UTC+2, Tony Kelman wrote: >> >>> > I think there's a big differences between developing core features in >>> packages and shipping them with the default version and having optional >>> third party packages implementing core features. >>> >>> Like what, exactly? If the complaint is about ease of installation of >>> packages, then that's a known and acknowledged bug (set of bugs) that >>> people are thinking about how to do a better job of. We could always use >>> more help making things better. >>> >> >> If there's a bunch of official packages that are shipped with default >> version it's like having no packages, it's just a way for the devs to >> organize their work internally that doesn't concern the user too much. >> >> On the other hand for third party packages the user has to find them, >> install them, debug them, worry about long term maintenance, etc. In >> reality it's a bit more fuzzy than that, so maybe my distinction isn't so >> relevant. >> >> >> For plotting I think it would be better to have any plotting than none, >> even though not everybody will agree on the best choice for the one. The >> least dependencies seems the most important criteria to me, as long as you >> can draw lines, points and surfaces with decent performances. The high >> level interface doesn't matter that much in my opinion. >> >
