[julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

James, that's great. I'd say the most efficient way of doing this is if I finish the API and you do the REPL package for querying the API and displaying the results. We can discuss the data and the structure of the responses and I can provide you with mock responses, so you won't have to wait

[julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

I am interested in this project and have some time on my hands over the next few weeks. On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 5:55:16 AM UTC-4, Adrian Salceanu wrote: > > I begun working on such a tool a few weeks ago. > > A) It goes over the METADATA (https://github.com/JuliaLang/METADATA.jl) > for

[julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

I begun working on such a tool a few weeks ago. A) It goes over the METADATA (https://github.com/JuliaLang/METADATA.jl) for all the registered packages and then B) uses the GitHub API to get the README and additional stats (contributions, stars, followers, etc). Planning on C) exposing this as

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Hans, Definitely could be worth it. Anyone can make a Github organization = Julia organization, but it'd be best to build up some consensus about its scope first. That could be done on julia - users or maybe on an issue in an empty github repository. You'd want to reach out to authors of packages

[julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

A growing ecosystem is great but let's not fall into the trap of "bigger is better". CPAN (& CRAN which is modeled after it) is/was huge but that hasn't prevented the long decline of Perl. Sometimes "less is more", meaning: I'd rather have a smaller number of high quality larger packages/frame

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

My goal here is not R bashing (I do still use it) but simply pointing where the pain points are so that Julia can avoid the same mistakes. R's Task views simply don't cut it for me . My single greatest source for good info on R packages is R-bloggers. Also google is very useful to search R info

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Since R basically has the same multiple dispatch I don't think this is what explains the difference with CRAN. I think the difference is that the julia repository is based on github which enables collaboration whereas CRAN is basically a file server without any collaboaration tools. On Thursday

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Iain, do you think it would be reasonable to set up a JuliaMath (or JuliaNum) organization? After all, Julia intends to become an open source competitor/replacement for Matlab. How will such a Julia organization be set up, for example. On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 4:17:13 PM UTC+1, Iain D

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

I think our equivalent of CRAN Task Views are the various organizations, e.g. juliaopt.org. I'd like to incorporate them into the official package listing in a more obvious way, especially as their popularity is growing (saw JuliaGeo pop up recently, for example) On Jan 28, 2015 4:58 AM, "Tamas Pap

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

I don't think Steven's view is unfriendly per se. Documentation/organization is hard, and saying that some other projects did not do it perfectly either is not a slur on anyone's work. I tend to agree with Steven's opinion: very few R packages have vignettes (although the good quality ones do), an

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

You think the documentation of R packages is very spartan? ... Well, there you go. (I thought this mailing list strived to be super-friendly. Recently, I felt a tendency here to diminish the work of other open source projects. Could we stop this?) To find packages on CRAN, the normal procedure

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

I couldn't agree more. Personally I find CRAN to be a mess. There's no organization to it. You can only find something in there by googling. Also the documentation of R packages is very spartan... On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:49:40 PM UTC+1, Ista Zahn wrote: > > As an R user I'm surprised

[julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

All packages should meet minimum standards that clearly state its dependences and where they can be downloaded. There is nothing worse when trying to use a new package that has no docs that clearly explains its purpose and no examples. Every author should realize he/she is dealing with noobs th

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Currently we bundle loads of binary dependencies in order to include batteries for common cases. There will always be some tension about what to include, so creating different distributions seems to be the way to please everyone. See also https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/5155

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

On a related note, at some point we should consider producing a "batteries included" distribution of Julia + commonly used packages, ala Python's Anaconda or Haskell's Haskell Platform . The primary work in that case is coordinating compatibility among the versio

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

As a tangent about conda and package granularity: something that has stuck with me is a comment from Travis Oliphant that the scipy package itself is only as big as it is because of the historical difficulty of binary packaging; ideally scipy would have been split into separate inter-related librar

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Personally, I think powers of two are obviously more important, so 512 is really the prize. On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Randy Zwitch wrote: > Geez, had I known there would be a race to 500, I'd have submitted my > OAuth 1 package (per Stefan's point though, I'm sans documentation and > test

[julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Geez, had I known there would be a race to 500, I'd have submitted my OAuth 1 package (per Stefan's point though, I'm sans documentation and tests at the moment) On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 3:39:33 PM UTC-5, Viral Shah wrote: > > I wonder what the 500th package will be. > > -viral > > On Tue

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

I think that multiple dispatch helps here a lot – or really just the fact that methods don't live *inside* of types like they do in class-based single-dispatch o.o. languages. This lets one shared package define a bunch of straightforward types and other packages can use those types without having

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Personally (and I am definitely biased by experience), I really like the model that is used pretty widely in the scientific python community. A lot of people use Continuum's Anaconda Python distribution, which includes about 200 packages (not all of them are actually python though). It's tested

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Great points Ista. I think the main motivation in emulating CRAN is with respect to overall volume of functionality, but your points about too many overlapping or half-baked packages strike home as a former (and still occasional) R user. I think the efforts in the Julia package repository, METADAT

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

I wasn't really trying to hold CRAN up as an example of the best type of package registry, just that it represents an extreme (to my understanding) in terms of quality control and size, while still regarded as being of pretty high quality. Any online discussion comparing R and Julia invariably incl

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

As an R user I'm surprised to see CRAN held up as a model to aspire to. There is a _lot_ of overlapping functionality among those 6k packages, making it hard to figure out which one is "best" for a particular purpose. There are also a lot of unfocused packages providing miscellaneous collections of

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Yes indeed Christoph, a package that doesn't work is a package that might as well not exist. Fortunately, and fairly uniquely I think, we can quantify to some extent how many of our packages are working, and the degree to which they are. In my mind the goal now is "grow fast and don't break too ma

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Additional references: PyPI lists 54212 packages , currently (roughly half as many as node) but, CRAN only has 6214 . Cheers, Kevin On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Sean Garborg wrote: > You wouldn't like node

[julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

You wouldn't like node ;) On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 4:29:53 PM UTC-7, Christoph Ortner wrote: > > Great that so many are contributing to Julia, but I would question whether > such a large number of packages will be healthy in the long run. It will > make it very

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Ah, there it is! Thanks for outlining the process. On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:11:31 AM UTC-7, Iain Dunning wrote: > > That is really weird, I have no explanation. If it says updated on 01-20, > its for METADATA (and the last green build for Julia 0.4) as at 2AM EST on > the 20th. Weird

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

That is really weird, I have no explanation. If it says updated on 01-20, its for METADATA (and the last green build for Julia 0.4) as at 2AM EST on the 20th. Weird... It is up now for the 21st. On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Sean Garborg wrote: > Packages being registered and tagged between

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Packages being registered and tagged between the 0.3 run and the 0.4 run -- pretty cool! The package I'm thinking of (Geodesy.jl) was registered and tagged on the 19th (merged ~13:00 EST), so maybe the run marked '2015-01-20' was kicked off on the 19th at 2AM EST? I don't know if there's an ide

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Only tagged packages are counted. Also, I have to manually push to the website still, even though PackageEval hasn't had a problem in a long time. I should probably let my baby fly and let it fully automatically run. The date is the date I push it on - the actual run happens at around 2AM EST, whic

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

I think we were over 500 in METADATA last time the pulse was updated. I just know because I registered a package on the 19th and it wasn't in the 1/20 status changes. Curious, would that be due to METADATA being updated manually, or the batch taking ~12 hours or so, or the batch needing to be r

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Yes, METADATA packages should be pretty usable when someone downloads them. Now that we have the documentation on new documentation, packages can start including docs too. I wonder if we can set a minimum code coverage requirement, and if we can somehow also measure doc coverage for exported fu

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

Packages registered in METADATA should be pretty usable – they should generally have some tests and those tests should pass. They should also have documentation. We haven't been very strict about enforcing all of this, but I think that going forward we ought to be. On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:08 PM,

Re: [julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

If you do accept unfinished and very alpha package, I can submit one right now ... It won't be very usable, but I am wondering about how finished should be a package when submitted to METADATA. Viral Shah a écrit : I wonder what the 500th package will be. -viral On Tuesday, January 20, 201

[julia-users] Re: Almost at 500 packages!

I wonder what the 500th package will be. -viral On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:02:45 PM UTC+5:30, Iain Dunning wrote: > > Just noticed on http://pkg.julialang.org/pulse.html that we are at 499 > registered packages with at least one version tagged that are Julia 0.4-dev > compatible (493 on