I think "merge" was meant as: Lets create one uniform package and join the
efforts. Since ASCIIPlots is not actively maintained I think it would be
really great if you could take the lead to make an awsome text plotting
tool.
I like the name TextPlot by the way.
Am Donnerstag, 22. Mai 2014 17:42:06 UTC+2 schrieb Adam Smith:
>
> TextPlot seems like a good name.
>
> Thanks for the offer on merging, but again, there's really nothing to
> merge. Adding scatterplots to dotplot will be trivial; I'll do that soon
> (making dotplot's features a superset of ASCIIPlots). There is nothing
> compatible/overlapping between these two (small) codebases for merging to
> make sense.
>
> I would be curious what John Myles White thinks about a more complete
> terminal plotting package for Julia. ASCIIPlots clearly imitates Matlab's
> plotting functions ("imagesc"), and I was going for something closer to
> Mathematica or Maple (which are more symbolic-oriented than Matlab), since
> I think the syntax is prettier. However, I know a large portion of Julia's
> users are also Matlab users, so if Matlab-compatibility is a goal, you may
> want to keep the packages separate.
>
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:25:01 AM UTC-4, Leah Hanson wrote:
>>
>> Maybe something like TextPlot would be a good merged name? It conveys
>> what the package does (text plots) rather than how it does it (Braille
>> characters).
>>
>> Having a more complete plotting package for the terminal would move
>> towards having a way to make `plot` just work when you start up a Julia
>> REPL, which I think is a goal. I'd be happy to help merge them, but
>> probably won't have time for a couple weeks.
>>
>> -- Leah
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Adam Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not totally opposed to it, but my initial reaction is not to:
>>>
>>> 1. I don't necessarily agree about the name. I personally think "dot
>>> plot" has a nice ring to it, and it is a more accurate description of
>>> what
>>> it does (using Braille characters). This very specifically exploits
>>> Unicode
>>> (non-ASCII) characters, so calling it an ASCII plot would be misleading
>>> (for those who want the restricted character set for some reason).
>>> 2. There's not really a single line of code they have in common, so
>>> there's nothing to "merge": it would just be a rename. I didn't look at
>>> the
>>> code of ASCIIPlots before making it, and we chose completely different
>>> APIs. For example, ASCIIPlots doesn't have a way to plot functions, and
>>> DotPlot doesn't (yet) have a way to scatterplot an array.
>>> 3. They are both quite small and simple (dotplot is ~100 lines of
>>> code, ascii is ~250); merging would probably be more work than either
>>> originally took to create.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 1:31:10 AM UTC-4, Ivar Nesje wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Would it make sense to merge this functionality into ASCIIPlots? To me
>>>> that seems like a better name, and John Myles White is likely to be
>>>> willing
>>>> to transfer the repository if you want to be the maintainer. That package
>>>> started from code posted on the mailing list, and the author thought it
>>>> was
>>>> a joke. John packaged it for others to use.
>>>
>>>
>>
