5 ms·
It is open-source software, not a walled garden - there are going to be multiple options, and they are not going to all be named ["PLOTTINGISHERE$i" for i in 1:
by idunning 13y ago
It is open-source software, not a walled garden - there are going to be multiple options, and they are not going to all be named ["PLOTTINGISHERE$i" for i in 1:4].
If you like MATLAB/pyplot/matplotlib style, PyPlot.jl is for you.
If you like ggplot2, Gadfly.jl is for you.
If you like gnuplot, Gaston.jl is for you.
Finally, but not least, is Winston.jl, which is its own thing altogether.
I think in many cases its good for packages that overlap to come together/one to become dominant, but I don't think that applies here.
https://github.com/stevengj/PyPlot.jl https://github.com/stevengj/PyPlot.jl
https://github.com/dcjones/Gadfly.jl https://github.com/dcjones/Gadfly.jl
https://github.com/mbaz/Gaston.jl https://github.com/mbaz/Gaston.jl
https://github.com/nolta/Winston.jl https://github.com/nolta/Winston.jl
- username223 13y agoI guess Gaston would be my choice, since I'm most familiar with Gnuplot syntax for tweaking plots. Still, it's a shame Julia inherited the Ruby/Rails convention of making up nonsense names for packages. While they don't need to be named PLOTTING$i, it wouldn't hurt for them to be named Plot::Gnuplot, etc. (or whatever the syntax is for nested names). Doing otherwise is just putting branding ahead of actually trying to help people.