No need to be snarky.
Edit: the documentation that you showed me isn’t very good, as it doesn’t even show an example.
I mean, it’s kinda fair play given the rather rude and ungracious way you called the documentation and culture around it “terrible”. People take that sort of thing personally because many of us have contributed to the documentation and feel some level of ownership over it.
That’s because @Eben60 just linked you to docstrings. A better link would be this instructional page from the manual, which I think is fairly good: Missing Values · The Julia Language
Just to keep to the facts: I’ve cited three links, and I don’t know which one @mpeters2 was meaning, but in any case each one provides a lot of examples.
I’ve cited also two links to a blog articles by Kamiński a couple of posts before.
-
Isn’t there a whole thread about posters’ behaviors being off-putting to outsiders?
-
and iirc, part of that conversation was about posters going off-topic.
-
Another thread asked about “what don’t you like about Julia for serious work.” I said the “culture of terrible documentation” (have you looked at the documentation for GLMakie?). And instead of taking it as useful criticism (hmmm…maybe we should come up with a framework that encourages good documentation), a poster or two has decided to pick juvenile fights in other threads simply because i was not aware of the “missing” keyword.
I don’t consider a blog to be documentation. When i go to github or Julia, the documentation is awefully sparse, uses esoteric examples (see the randn() example), incomplete function definitions (e.g. function listings without listing return types), single line functions written in the REPL, etc. Rarely do i find complete documentation with good examples.
1 Like