Jean-François, have you looked at Julia.jl? No tags, but it's nicely categorized.
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:11:16 PM UTC-4, Jean-François Baffier wrote: > > Maybe I missed a a more recent thread but I would like how things are > going for the packages organization. It is currently hard to look for a > package when you know what functionality you're looking. It is even harder > when you look for something general. > > What about a tag list ? (keywords associated with each submitted package > would be a plus of course) > And the clustering by theme would be nice (like all the package related to > geometry, to plots and so on). > > Best, > Jeff > > Le vendredi 30 janvier 2015 08:45:12 UTC+9, Ken B a écrit : >> >> I have found the "curated deibans" by research topic from svaksha very >> useful when looking for a certain method: >> https://github.com/svaksha/Julia.jl >> >> +1 Steven Sagaerts comment on less is more, coming from an experienced R >> user. >> >> >> On Thursday, 29 January 2015 23:13:37 UTC+1, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >>> >>> I think the approach should be to add keywords/labels to the package >>> metadata. >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Hans W Borchers <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I absolutely agree, and your description is very helpful in >>>> understanding what >>>> a Julia organization shall be. >>>> >>>> But see, then Julia organizations are not an "equivalent to CRAN Task >>>> Views". >>>> There should exist something inbetween an organization and the package >>>> list, >>>> maybe a classification associated to the METADATA, as Sean mentioned, or >>>> something else (I don't know what). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 8:50:32 PM UTC+1, Jiahao Chen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Organizations only make sense when there are: >>>>> >>>>> a) a critical mass of contributors focused around a common theme, and >>>>> b) the theme is sufficiently focused to the extent that common code >>>>> infrastructure can be shared and reused. >>>>> >>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I simply don't see how the proposed list >>>>> of packages form a coherent organization. >>>>> >>>>> Note that we already have several core numerics packages under the >>>>> main JuliaLang organization, and progress has been slow and unsteady. I >>>>> say >>>>> this not to criticize our contributors. Quite the opposite, it takes a >>>>> lot >>>>> of courage to even try, and every bit is much appreciated. The problem is >>>>> simply that good numerics code is hard to evaluate, write, verify and >>>>> maintain, and few of us are in the business of core numerical algorithms. >>>>> >>>> >>>
