Looking over the latest 1.0 milestone I see that the underscore apocalypse in Base is beginning to build steam. Am I correct in thinking that julia now wants everything to just be mashed together? Length doesn’t seem to be a real issue anymore as we have beginindex and nbytesavailable coming. I incr…

[image] kristoffer.carlsson: You can. Oh that makes me so happy! :smile:

Thanks so much for this. I think at times I struggle with understanding the changes that happen in Github, but this makes a lot more sense to me now. Looking at that list of possible imports is far less scary then I had made in my mind! I still want more _ but I feel less like the choices are being …

Removing underscores represents an aesthetic preference that, to the decision-makers, is more important than readability. My approach is to use underscores except when there is a direct analogue in Base (like the is* functions).

[image] iamed2: is more important than readability. I dispute whether this is really the case. I certainly agree that you wouldn’t want stuff like besselfunctionofthesecondkind(a, x), but there’s nothing in Base that looks like that, which is the whole point. Multiple dispatch is particular…

I do not understand why the Julia core team decided to sacrifice readability for beauty. Beautiful code is important for me, but not to seperate words either with camel case or with underscores sacrifices readability. I don’t understand this decision. :cry:

[image] StefanKarpinski: As a matter of historical interest, there was a period of time where sticking code into the JuliaLang/julia contrib directory was how packages were developed. OT X-ref for the interested: Run the half-life of code analysis on Julia? - #2 by cdsousa

[image] iamed2: Removing underscores represents an aesthetic preference that, to the decision-makers, is more important than readability. I look at it differently. I don’t think it reflects a preference for mashing words together – instead it is a convention that encourages you to consider ho…

I don’t think that ANY language can become more readable by ommiting spaces and by putting everything in one word. In science, you have subscripts and superscripts. You don’t write everything in one word. While programming, to have at least subscripts (by using an underscore) is essential for me. No…

I don’t think anyone forces you not to name your own functions however you like. I hope this helps?

But that’s the point. Don’t put everything in one word. In science, you have single-letter identifiers, mostly. You need a lot of subscripts to make up for that.

Naming: Remove all underscores to matter what?

General Usage

mauro3 January 23, 2018, 8:38pm 11

OT X-ref for the interested: Run the half-life of code analysis on Julia? - #2 by cdsousa

Topic		Replies	Views
Recommended style guide for naming functions is not practical General Usage	25	5419	February 26, 2019
Which names are hard to read? Community	15	2126	March 9, 2017
The current state of function naming style General Usage function , style	24	983	May 2, 2026
Unicode: a bad idea, in general General Usage	83	4984	June 17, 2023
Abbreviations in source Internals & Design	32	2916	April 20, 2019

Naming: Remove all underscores to matter what?

Related topics