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

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/feedback-on-inconsistent-naming-of-types-for-julia-v1-0-release/7923>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Tags:** array, poll\
**Created:** [December 22, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/feedback-on-inconsistent-naming-of-types-for-julia-v1-0-release/7923 "2017-12-22T18:34:38Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![juliohm](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/juliohm/32/215266_2.png) [@juliohm](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/juliohm)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/feedback-on-inconsistent-naming-of-types-for-julia-v1-0-release/7923/1 "2017-12-22T18:34:38Z")

</div>

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?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nalimilan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/nalimilan/32/147_2.png) [@nalimilan](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/nalimilan)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 6:37pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/feedback-on-inconsistent-naming-of-types-for-julia-v1-0-release/7923/2 "2017-12-22T18:37:25Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![davidanthoff](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/davidanthoff/32/223493_2.png) [@davidanthoff](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/davidanthoff)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/feedback-on-inconsistent-naming-of-types-for-julia-v1-0-release/7923/3 "2017-12-22T19:09:36Z")

</div>

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](http://julialang.org) will not break existing code in any 1.x release?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JeffreySarnoff](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/jeffreysarnoff/32/1980_2.png) [@JeffreySarnoff](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/JeffreySarnoff)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 7:14pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/feedback-on-inconsistent-naming-of-types-for-julia-v1-0-release/7923/4 "2017-12-22T19:14:26Z")

</div>

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).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![juliohm](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/juliohm/32/215266_2.png) [@juliohm](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/juliohm)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 7:16pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/feedback-on-inconsistent-naming-of-types-for-julia-v1-0-release/7923/5 "2017-12-22T19:16:33Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JeffreySarnoff](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/jeffreysarnoff/32/1980_2.png) [@JeffreySarnoff](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/JeffreySarnoff)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 7:16pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/feedback-on-inconsistent-naming-of-types-for-julia-v1-0-release/7923/6 "2017-12-22T19:16:58Z")

</div>

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).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![StefanKarpinski](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stefankarpinski/32/24_2.png) [@StefanKarpinski](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/StefanKarpinski)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 7:22pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/feedback-on-inconsistent-naming-of-types-for-julia-v1-0-release/7923/7 "2017-12-22T19:22:16Z")

</div>

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.