I think that Steven has a point here. Technically we have all in place and 
Tims "Reexport" snipped is indeed the solution for creating Matlab like 
toolboxes. Its quite interesting that nobody has yet done such a 
metapackage. Maybe its because those users knowing the packages like the 
fine-grained control and therefore don't require a big metapackage?

I also think that the large amount of research users naturally leads to 
many smaller packages that are formed in a bottom up process and therefore 
are quite inhomogeneous.

In my opinion it would need two ingredients to improve on this front
- It would be good to find areas, where there are many smaller incompatible 
packages that would benefit from a unification/reorganization.
- In my opinion it would also need some popularity system that makes it 
dead simple to know, which is the standard package for a common task and 
which is much more experimental.

Maybe it could also work trying to make a top down analysis: What are the 
10 main packages a user could search for?

Best

Tobias
 

Am Montag, 1. August 2016 17:36:56 UTC+2 schrieb Steven Sagaert:
>
> When I say "work well together" I don't just mean that their versions 
> technically work together without errors, but also that they match 
> stylistically and that the datastructures that they expect as input/output 
> match so that no excessive translation and/or copying of data is needed 
> which is bad for performance and style.  That kind of discussion is for 
> example happening in OCAML to come to a platform and how to resolve the 
> ocaml standard lib vs Jane street lib schism.
>
> On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 5:19:17 PM UTC+2, Steven Sagaert wrote:
>>
>> I think the most important part of it is the idea of having a second 
>> (beyond the standard lib that comes with the runtime) larger, optional 
>> layer of curated libs that are known to work together. That together with 
>> the metapackage idea for easy inclusion ( maybe with possible overrides as 
>> in the Rust proposal) would be very handy for people who do not do Julia 
>> coding all the time and hence cannot follow the larger package ecosystem 
>> closely. People who do not want this second layer could still just use the 
>> standard lib + whatever packages they want. One could even extend this to 
>> multiple layer, each one more optional and lighter curated: standard lib -> 
>> platform light -> extended paltform -> ...
>>
>> Now there is already a good attempt in the julia ecosystem to group 
>> related packages in webpages and try to avoid too much libraries that do 
>> the same or partially overlap (more like scientific Python, rather than the 
>> R jungle) and that's great, but per group there still  are several 
>> competing packages and sometimes it's unclear from the descriptions to pick 
>> a clear winner. A curated subset of these "the platform"  by the community 
>> that adrresses the most common needs except maybe for special niches, would 
>> be very helpful. That's all :)
>>
>> On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 4:33:24 PM UTC+2, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>>>
>>> There's a fair amount of discussion of the Rust Platform proposal over 
>>> here:
>>>
>>> https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/proposal-the-rust-platform/3745
>>>
>>> In short there's a lack of agreement to this in Rust. Moreover, in Rust, 
>>> different versions of libraries are much more closely locked to each other, 
>>> whereas in Julia the coupling is much looser. Steven, since you're in favor 
>>> of this idea, can you explain why you think it's a good idea for Julia? 
>>> What problems does it solve?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Tony Kelman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The vision I personally have for this would be something more like SUSE 
>>>> Studio (https://susestudio.com/) where it's just a few clicks, or a 
>>>> configuration file in the build system, that could give you a set of 
>>>> default-installed packages of your choosing, and make installers for your 
>>>> own custom "spins" of a Julia-with-packages distribution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 2:08:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Holy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> module MyMetaPackage 
>>>>>
>>>>> using Reexport 
>>>>>
>>>>> @reexport using PackageA 
>>>>> @reexport using PackageB 
>>>>> ... 
>>>>>
>>>>> end 
>>>>>
>>>>> Best. 
>>>>> --Tim 
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, August 1, 2016 1:48:47 AM CDT Steven Sagaert wrote: 
>>>>> > is more than just a webpage with a list of packages... for starters 
>>>>> the 
>>>>> > concept of metapackage. 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 10:25:33 AM UTC+2, Tamas Papp wrote: 
>>>>> > > Maybe you already know about it, but there is a curated list of 
>>>>> packages 
>>>>> > > at https://github.com/svaksha/Julia.jl 
>>>>> > > 
>>>>> > > On Mon, Aug 01 2016, Steven Sagaert wrote: 
>>>>> > > > see https://aturon.github.io/blog/2016/07/27/rust-platform/ 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>

Reply via email to