# What's the best practice in Julia for research (often changed codes)?

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/whats-the-best-practice-in-julia-for-research-often-changed-codes/58892>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Tags:** design-pattern\
**Created:** [April 9, 2021, 12:18am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/whats-the-best-practice-in-julia-for-research-often-changed-codes/58892 "2021-04-09T00:18:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lmiq](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/lmiq/32/18314_2.png) [@lmiq](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/lmiq)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2021, 12:55am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/whats-the-best-practice-in-julia-for-research-often-changed-codes/58892/2 "2021-04-09T00:55:01Z")

</div>

Some options to deal with the problem of Revise not being able to track type changes are discussed in some threads. For example:

> [@Workflow when experimenting with types](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/workflow-when-experimenting-with-types/56483):
>
> Hi all, longtime lurker and irregular Julia user here. Revise is absolutely great and I love it but I wonder if there’s a better workflow when experimenting with types. I try to get my types defined ASAP but especially in the beginning, when taking a stab at a particular problem I frequently find myself changing definitions. Currently I just restart the interactive in order to reload Revise and my type definitions but I feel like I’m doing something wrong or that there might be a better way. H…

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/whats-the-best-practice-in-julia-for-research-often-changed-codes/58892)._