# \[ANN\] UnitTypes v1.0.0

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ann-unittypes-v1-0-0/126351
**Category:** Package Announcements
**Created:** [February 26, 2025, 6:53pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ann-unittypes-v1-0-0/126351 "2025-02-26T18:53:34Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![bcon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/bcon/32/23495_2.png) [@bcon](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/bcon)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2025, 2:48am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ann-unittypes-v1-0-0/126351/6 "2025-02-27T02:48:32Z")

</div>

> [@aplavin](#):
>
> …can potentially be solved with minor modifications to [Unitful.jl](https://juliaregistries.github.io/General/packages/redirect_to_repo/Unitful) design? Eg, simplify types or introduce shorter type aliases for common cases.

There’s been plenty of discussion [here](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/physical-units-in-julia/76825/19) and [here](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/typed-units-instead-of-parameterized-unitful-or-exponent-tracking-dynamicquantities/105735/4) but much of my point is that Unitful’s design is overly complicated for many use cases, compared to the straightforward approach here. That first thread mentions a few packages that tackle Unitful’s verbosity, but it’s still there underneath. And fixing the display verbosity doesn’t give you clear, simple types.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ann-unittypes-v1-0-0/126351)._