[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

Actually, all is good. The current docs do not take a stand on the use of case following an acronym. On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:38:39 PM UTC-4, Jeffrey Sarnoff wrote: > > update on package names that begin with an acronym .. following much > discussion, the rule which a strong

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

update on package names that begin with an acronym .. following much discussion, the rule which a strong preponderance of participants favor: the acronym is to be uppercased and the following words camelcased, no separator. so: CSSscripts, HTMLlinks, XMLparser. This does not match the

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

Just clarifying: For a two part package name that begins with an acronym and ends in a word the present guidance: the acronym is to be uppercased and the second word is to be capitalized, no separator. so: CSSScripts, HTMLLinks the desired guidance (from 24hrs of

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

first pass at naming guidelines https://github.com/JuliaPraxis/Naming On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 8:07:18 AM UTC-4, Páll Haraldsson wrote: > > On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 9:59:12 AM UTC, Michael Borregaard wrote: >> >> >> So when I came to julia I was struck by how structured the package

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 9:59:12 AM UTC, Michael Borregaard wrote: > > > So when I came to julia I was struck by how structured the package > ecosystem appears to be, yet, in spite of the micropackaging. [..] I think > there are a number of reasons for this difference, but I also believe

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 3:35:46 PM UTC, Gabriel Gellner wrote: > `atol/rtol` versus > > `abstol/reltol` versus `abs_tol/rel_tol` > For the latter "versus" at least (and other examples), this would be solved by style-insensitivity, as in Nimrod (or Nim) language, the only one I've

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

JuliaPraxis is on github and gitter ... bring our praxes. On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 8:42:05 AM UTC-4, Jeffrey Sarnoff wrote: > > I have created a new Organization on github: *JuliaPraxis.* > Everyone who has added

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

__JuliaPraxis__ is on [github](https://github.com/JuliaPraxis) and [gitter](https://gitter.im/JuliaPraxis/Lobby), welcoming growth.

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

Great to see this brought up here, and to read the constructive and thought-provoking responses from members of the Julia community. I feel this is highly important and I have thougt a lot about it recently, as I am writing an invited guest editorial for a leading ecological journal about how

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

Good generic API design is one of the hardest problems around. For many problem areas, we just haven't found the right design yet. JuMP is one of the prime examples of brilliant work in this area. Mathematica is the best example of consistent APIs in a language and it's ecosystem because Stephen

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

I think sometimes people go overboard with types, but types allow us to take full advantage of multiple dispatch and abstraction on another level. For example, a diagonal matrix and a full/dense matrix are both the same thing, but if you can dispatch on them differently you can massively improve

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

I noticed this also .. and this is why I chose to "rip" some packages for some of its functionality. >From what I observed the problem is the "coolness" of the language and the highly creative level of the package writers. Just as the first post here states the seemingly two advantages , cool

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

it seems a good idea JuliaPraxis. I have been struggling with trying to get consistent naming and having a guide to follow may at least cut short the struggling time.

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

I have created a new Organization on github: *JuliaPraxis.* Everyone who has added to this thread will get an invitation to join, and so contribute. I will set up the site and let you know how do include your wor(l)d views. Anyone else is welcome to post to this thread, and I will send an

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

Conventions would have to be arrived at before this is possible. On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 3:39:55 AM UTC-7, Traktor Toni wrote: > > In my opinion the solutions to this are very clear, or would be: > > 1. make a mandatory linter for all julia code > 2. julia IDEs should offer good

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

In my opinion the solutions to this are very clear, or would be: 1. make a mandatory linter for all julia code 2. julia IDEs should offer good intellisense Am Freitag, 7. Oktober 2016 17:35:46 UTC+2 schrieb Gabriel Gellner: > > Something that I have been noticing, as I convert more of my

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

Create a repo where we can all bikeshed different names, agree upon some, and then standardize. I honestly don't care which conventions are chosen and will just find/replace with whatever people want, but there has to be a "whatever people want" to do that. On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

Le samedi 08 octobre 2016 à 01:47 -0700, jonathan.bie...@alumni.epfl.ch a écrit : > Maybe an "easy" first step would be to have a page (a github repo) > containing domain specific naming conventions (atol/abstol) that > package > developers can look up. Even though existing packages might not

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

Maybe an "easy" first step would be to have a page (a github repo) containing domain specific naming conventions (atol/abstol) that package developers can look up. Even though existing packages might not adopt them, at least newly created ones would have a chance to be more consistent. You could

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

Yeah the R system is probably the best guide, as it also has a pretty easy to use package manager ... hence so, so many packages ;) I think python works without a single BDF (for science at least) since the core packages are monolithic, so the consistency is immediately apparent, and I find

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

I don't really see how you can solve this without a single dictator who controls the package ecosystem. I'm not enough of an expert in Python to say how well things work there, but the R ecosystem is vastly less organized than the Julia ecosystem. Insofar as it's getting better, it's because

[julia-users] Re: Julia and the Tower of Babel

Hello colleague, On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 5:35:46 PM UTC+2, Gabriel Gellner wrote: > > Something that I have been noticing, as I convert more of my research code > over to Julia, is how the super easy to use package manager (which I love), > coupled with the talent base of the Julia