Added an issue here:
BTW, in the scientific domain, if you want to mention quantum computing, I don’t think QuantumOptics.jl is accurate. Issued here
And for machine learning, I think Turing.jl should also be mentioned as some kind of Julian’s Stan (a classic lib in other languages).
I can make a PR for those if your guys like.
I can’t say, but this isn’t the first time the term figures prominently in text written by Julians…
_ _ _ _(_)_ | A fresh approach to technical computing (_) | (_) (_) | Documentation: https://docs.julialang.org _ _ _| |_ __ _ | Type "?" for help, "]?" for Pkg help. | | | | | | |/ _` | | | | |_| | | | (_| | | Version 0.7.0 (2018-08-08 06:46 UTC) _/ |\__'_|_|_|\__'_| | Official http://julialang.org/ release |__/ | x86_64-w64-mingw32
I like the site overall, but in the Julia Observer list, I’m missing the test status that was available in the old site’s package listing.
Frequently when I’m looking for a package related to a topic, I searched the list for keywords and then looked at the very short description and the test status.
While it doesn’t tell you how much is really tested, it does give a sense that if the package fails tests in the last 2 versions and the date was a year ago that the package is probably stale and abandoned. This was atleast a warning to use with caution and/or maybe search a bit more if there isn’t a more active and recent substitute even if they used slightly different wording in their descriptions.
Especially with all the breaking changes switching from 0.6 to 0.7 and later, I’m missing a proper feedback on when I can attempt switching my work code to 0.7. Currently the package listing page seems to indicate I should probably still wait with only 20% working.
All of the datestamped changes to package test status also only seem to be on the left 0.6 column, no changes on the 0.7 column…?
Hi, I realized the version in Spanish has several typos and grammatical mistakes. Is there a way I can help with that? I am native speaker.
The version of what in Spanish? You just need to make a Pull Request to the relevant file.
I guess you are talking about the 1.0 blog post. In that case you can edit with your corrections following this link: