[Numpy-discussion] Future directions for SciPy in light of meeting at Berkeley
Michiel Jan Laurens de Hoon
mdehoon at ims.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Wed Mar 9 00:52:29 CST 2005
Travis Oliphant wrote:
> 1) Plotting -- scipy's plotting wasn't good enough (we knew that) and
> the promised solution (chaco) took too long to emerge as a simple
> replacement. While the elements were all there for chaco to work, very
> few people knew that and nobody stepped up to take chaco to the level
> that matplotlib, for example, has reached in terms of cross-gui
> applicability and user-interface usability.
I actually looked at Chaco before I started working on pygist (which is
now also included in SciPy, I think). My impression was that Chaco was
under active development by enthought, and that they were not looking
for developers to join in. When Chaco didn't come through, I tried
several plotting packages for python that were around at the time, some
of which were farther along than Chaco.
In the end, I decided to work on pygist instead because it was already
working (on unix/linux, at least) and seemed to be a better starting
point for a cross-platform plotting package, which pygist is today.
The other point is that different plotting packages have different
advantages and disadvantages, so you may not be able to find a plotting
package that suits everybody's needs.
More information about the Numpy-discussion