Feedback on inconsistent naming of types for Julia v1.0 release

array
poll

#1

This thread is an attempt to collect names in the language that don’t seem to be consistent from a user’s perspective. It would be nice to have them revisited for consistency?

Today I came across DArray for distributed arrays versus SharedArray for shared arrays. I see that packages like StaticArrays have adopted short names as well like SArray and MArray for statically-sized arrays. What do you think of ShArray for the shared array case? Keep it short?


#2

Distributed arrays and shared arrays are now in the standard library, so their names can be changed after 1.0.


#3

Wait, things in the standard library can be broken during julia 1.x? Really? That seems a terrible idea… I thought 1.0 meant that everything that ships with the binaries you get from julialang.org will not break existing code in any 1.x release?


#4

ShArray is less desirable than SharedArray imo, ShArray does not mean anything to me (should we be very quiet when using that sort of array – no, that’s ShhArray).


#5

Perhaps make it more verbose everywhere then? Like DistributedArray and SharedArray? I sympathize with the concern. What I am trying to point out is the inconsistency. I like the idea of having very explicit names.


#6

More generally, there had been an authoritative message regarding Julia favoring clarity, obviousness in naming things (@StefanKarpinski may have written that on behalf of all).


#7

Standard library packages will be versioned like other packages, which means you can lock their version and still upgrade Julia itself, which won’t break since it has API stability.