The naming of JuliaDB.jl

Offtopic
21

why is that?

22

Why not call it something like Ensemble.jl or PersistentData.jl. I’m less concerned with the name for this specific package, but more about taking away JuliaDB, which in my opinion should be a Github organization that is the entrance point for DB, persistent storage, etc. related Julia packages. I know it is possible to have JuliaDB/JuliaDB.jl but this sends, to some extent, the wrong message, e.g. JuliaFEM/JuliaFEM.jl.

A problem with Github organizations is that only 1 level is supported. E.g. it would be nice to have something like JuliaMCMC with Mamba.jl, Klara.jl, Stan.jl, etc. but speaking for Stan I can see that we might need JuliaMCMC/Stan/Stan.jl, JuliaMCMC/Stan/PSIS.jl in the not too distant future.

1 Like
23

Is JuliaFEM.jl “connected to, or endorsed by, contributors to the Julia language itself.”?

24

No.

25 
module LucidTables
export LucidTable
end
26

Tubulous.jl or TubulousDB.jl or TubularDB.jl (containing or consisting of tubes…connecting the data. Being the internet is connected with tubes it makes perfect sense :slight_smile: )

27

JuliaDB.jl… what’s in a name? “Julia”, well, core developers contribute to it. “DB”, well it is a database. “JuliaDB”, well, it is a DB made by Julia. I don’t see why there is so much heat on this, instead of focusing on using JuliaDB.jl for your applications.

28

I second the suggestion that the JuliaDB org be renamed to JuliaDatabases.

3 Likes
29

If you’re not targetting transactional databases, but rather something like redshift or whatever, then perhaps some common terms for persistent, strongly indexed, distributed databases like “data warehouse” or “analytics database” could be inspiration for a less broad term for this package.

30

I believe the only inspiration for JuliaDB is… Julia. What Julia is might evolve over time. The common terms for whatever JuliaDB is… takes inspiration from Julia. It really is a different concept from the traditional databanks out there. JuliaDB was made to serve Julia, as you can see from the first message of this thread, second paragraph.

Can you imagine if “Falcon 9” had to encapsulate everything that it is? It would be pretty darn dysfunctional. Imagine if a Ferris wheel was named instead “Non-building structure of a rotating upright wheel”, NBSRUW for short? Not expressive (or Julian) at all. Names communicating ideas are a step forward in names. You can draw a parallel from reading the history of mathematical notation.

2 Likes
31

I’m actually quite happy with the name JuliaDB - and it’s a great point that the project scope might be more along the lines of “let’s create the best database system for Julia users and their clients” rather than “let’s fill in the distributed analytics space”, which would invalidate my previous post.

32

I think the name JuliaDB.jl for a package would be confusing (it would make me think it’s just a database implemented in Julia) and the org name JuliaDB seems both descriptive and succint.

DB is so common an abbreviation for databases of all types, and it doesn’t follow the convention of the org name usually having “Julia” in it, but the packages relying on just the “.jl” suffix to indicate that they are related to Julia.
What about DistributedData.jl?
I think that is more generic and makes it clear that it’s about distributed data, not just a particular database.

3 Likes
33

Scott, JuliaDB.jl is DB the Julia way. Julia is particular and special and generic.

Databases org isn’t the Julia way. They are interoperability with existing DBs. It shouldn’t have “Julia” in it, despite being “connected to, or endorsed by, contributors to the Julia language itself”.

34

I think successful names often avoid trying to incorporate descriptive terms, especially in such a basic area as databases.

Doug Cutting, creator of Hadoop, used the name of his son’s toy elephant.

1 Like
35

That would be good as well.

36

Yeah, as far as the name goes, Julia is one of my favorite things ever, and the devs have repeatedly blown my mind and are my heroes, but one thing they absolutely suck at is naming. Whenever I tell anyone about Julia my first task is always to get them past the name. I think JuliaDB is also a somewhat awkward name and would benefit from changing to something a bit more abstract. Dagger.jl is probably a good example. It’s also probably worth mentioning that all of the successful software in this area have these types of abstract names: pandas, Spark, Hadoop, Cassandra, Avro, Parquet, Mesos… I actually can’t think of a single counterexample right now. I’m not usually one for going along with the crowd, but in this case I think the crowd got it right.

1 Like
37

Naming things is hard.

one thing they absolutely suck at is naming

Followed, as is typical, by not actually suggesting a better name.

4 Likes
38

Julia is such a beautiful name. Is it not abstract enough for a DB? How is Pandas abstract and Julia not?

39

Ok, here is my go at it, maybe I’ll wind up sucking at naming just as much as you guys. :wink:

The name Julia, I’m pretty sure, comes from the Julii, the house of Julius and Augustus Caesar. So, how about naming Julia packages after famous members of said house? A fairly comprehensive list can be found here.

So here are a few that might be good: Libo, Florus, Marcus. Also Lucius, Gaius and Sextus were common first names, though of those I think the only one that sounds remotely appropriate would be Lucius. After some more digging on Wikipedia I’m sure some geographical inspiration could be found as well.

1 Like
40

Sorry, what I meant was: Julia is a an abstract name, but JuliaDB, less so.