Avoid using Julia in your package name.
It is usually clear from context and to your users that the package is a Julia package.
Having Julia in the name can imply that the package is connected to, or endorsed by, contributors to the Julia language itself.
I think the second line applies to our package.
Additionally there's a very consistent convention of a ".jl" name suffix across basically the whole language ecosystem (for example), and "Julicord.jl" doesn't really sound nice, it repeats too much IMO.
My vote is still for Discord.jl! It's super obvious.
But someone already made a package called Discord.jl!
That package was never completed nor registered, and I have never heard about anybody using it. Its repository doesn't even exist anymore. So nobody is going to think we are the same people who wrote that, or that we stole their idea.
This name is also better for search results and people googling stuff like "julia discord".
Source
I think the second line applies to our package. Additionally there's a very consistent convention of a ".jl" name suffix across basically the whole language ecosystem (for example), and "Julicord.jl" doesn't really sound nice, it repeats too much IMO.
My vote is still for Discord.jl! It's super obvious.
That package was never completed nor registered, and I have never heard about anybody using it. Its repository doesn't even exist anymore. So nobody is going to think we are the same people who wrote that, or that we stole their idea. This name is also better for search results and people googling stuff like "julia discord".