I want to second what Isaiah said. It can make sense to "bless" packages as the default packages where people should look at.
But that people are doing independent approaches is the very nature of open source which will (and should not) change. Often it even happens that stating with a fresh approach by a new individual can lead to new innovation making things better. Tobi Am Samstag, 29. Oktober 2016 05:08:43 UTC+2 schrieb Isaiah: > > the julia community would benefit by collecting all these packages in one >> place. >> > > There are only 3 or 4 of those packages that should be recommended for > general use. If someone wants to help users decide what package to use, > write up a comparison page with examples. It could be linked from the > existing blurbs on the download page. > > i'd suggest moving the rest to juliagraphics. make sense? > > > Trying to herd together a group of people who have already rejected the > aesthetic or engineering choices of existing, competing projects seems > totally futile. Winston and Gadfly existed before many of the newer > packages, but people chose to start/use/contribute to newer things anyway. > Putting packages in an org doesn't make people want to start cooperating. > Some of those listed are unmaintained or hobby experiments, and as your > link demonstrates, sometimes people just want to do their own thing -- and > that's fine! > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Ben Arthur <bjart...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> i wasn't looking for recommendations. am happily using gadfly. started >> out with pyplot three years ago. >> >> rather, i just think the julia community would benefit by collecting all >> these packages in one place. since tbreloff appears to want to keep an iron >> grip >> <https://github.com/tbreloff/Plots.jl/issues/222#issuecomment-217150371> >> on juliaplots, i'd suggest moving the rest to juliagraphics. make sense? >>> >>> >
