Taken from a Slack discussion: I’ve had colleagues comment that fragmentation is currently the only really bad thing of the Julia ecosystem. They miss the numpy/scipy monolithic approach. Now for most package ecosystems the bus factor probably follows some kind of power law, but the vibe I get …

This kind of feels like two separate issues: Big packages that are broken up into several small ones with perhaps a top level package re-exporting those methods. Most of the time a single or small team of contributors are maintaining all of these packages. Many packages that are trying to achi…

[image] bilderbuchi: One example that I recently encountered was that I stumbled upon GitHub - SciML/GlobalSensitivity.jl: Robust, Fast, and Parallel Global Sensitivity Analysis (GSA) in Julia . It uses the “GSA” in its Readme, which I assumed to stand for “Global Sensitivity Analysis”. Getting…

Thanks for the context! For a a passer-by it’s hard to make an accurate judgement.

[image] bilderbuchi: However, given that Julia and its ecosystem are quite “academic-affiliated” in nature, I suspect the incentives are a little aligned against that – I think it’s easier to get published when creating your own separate package than for “look, I made a series of big PRs against…

[image] lmiq: My feeling is only against name clashes. Ideally I would like that we could prefix package names by organization, as for example using SciML/DifferentialEquations Something like that would allow organizations to gain reputation and give reputation to packages, without introducing…

[image] jlapeyre: Unfortunately, it’s a bit backward. Most of the packages that we’d like in our curated registry are already in the general registry I don’t see why that is a problem. A package can be in multiple registries. More generally, as others have remarked: this is not the first top…

[image] lmiq: Something like that would allow organizations to gain reputation and give reputation to packages, without introducing barriers for new contributors (they already can do that, but less explicitly) [image] mohamed82008: Another suggestion to “solve” the fragmentation issue for…

[image] jlperla: there is no baseline package which works throughout a significant chunk of the ecosystem (outside of notable exceptions What are major areas without a “baseline package”? It would be useful to gather them in one place, I think. I’ve seen graphs and keyed arrays mentioned, an…

I’ve seen graphs and keyed arrays mentioned, anything else? Testing frameworks Tools for building / viewing / linting documentation I suppose there are “baseline” packages somewhat, but there are competitors which are nearly as popular

Sadly, everyone would have a different answer, which is why it is so useful to build out from conquering one domain at a time. @ChrisRackauckas has outlined a lot of them in his SciML docs consolidation - but SciML can’t personally manage writing all of them, just wrapping them and linking to thei…

Fixing Package Fragmentation

Community

nilshg May 15, 2023, 2:07pm 61

I’ve not seen an official announcement but was told this on Slack, and Sebastian confirmed as much some time ago:

Topic		Replies	Views
How can we create a leaner ecosystem for Julia? Statistics package , proposal , time-series , machine-learning	100	10952	October 15, 2020
Discussion on "Why I no longer recommend Julia" by Yuri Vishnevsky Community discussion	292	50423	September 9, 2022
The present and the future of package registration Package Management	80	2680	June 11, 2023
How to know if a package is good? Community	105	7506	June 13, 2022
Reduce package registration waiting period Meta Discussion	83	4391	June 10, 2020

Fixing Package Fragmentation

Related topics