# Naming positional arguments at call site

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/naming-positional-arguments-at-call-site/103526>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Created:** [September 4, 2023, 7:07pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/naming-positional-arguments-at-call-site/103526 "2023-09-04T19:07:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 27

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ParadaCarleton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/paradacarleton/32/20005_2.png) [@ParadaCarleton](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ParadaCarleton)\
**Post date:** [September 4, 2023, 8:19pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/naming-positional-arguments-at-call-site/103526/27 "2023-09-04T20:19:51Z")

</div>

> [@adienes](#):
>
> I’m pretty confident there are more differences between the libraries than just “PyTorch is slightly more readable”

Not particularly. People liked PyTorch because eager mode was more intuitive and produced readable error messages, and also because it was more readable than TensorFlow. These are the main reasons any ML developer will give if you ask them why they switched.

> [@adienes](#):
>
> they’ll get over it.

It’s been 3 years since I learned Julia and if it weren’t for the package manager I’d go back to Python for this feature alone. I like it when my models are readable and I can check them for bugs.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/naming-positional-arguments-at-call-site/103526)._