> > we currently suffer from too much diversity in plotting APIs
Working on it, Daniel. ;) On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Daniel Carrera <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 14 September 2015 at 15:44, Andrei <[email protected]> wrote: > >> To continue Michael's answer, I think it would be nice to collect list of >> most important features that existing editors for Julia still lack and >> think out what can be improved. So far I've seen following features: >> >> * integrated debugger -- currently work in progress (Gallium.jl), so it >> may change soon >> * better integration with REPL -- AFAIK, Emacs is the only editor that >> has this integration (via ESS mode) so far >> * code refactoring >> * built-in documentation (in addition to Julia's own help system, I >> suppose) >> * built-in plots >> >> This doesn't look like a huge list. If this is what is needed for >> non-programmers to work with Julia without pain, I'd say we have a good >> chances to get it. >> >> > The list looks sensible. Can you clarify what you mean by code > refactoring? How do you think we should do built-in plots when we currently > suffer from too much diversity in plotting APIs? Gadfly is popular, but I > don't like it and it is immature, so I use PyPlot. > > Chers, > Daniel. >
