[SciPy-dev] Some concerns on Scipy development
oliphant at ee.byu.edu
Tue Mar 26 10:42:47 CST 2002
> To my mind there is a big "problem" with using scipy currently: It's
> in too much flux. While there is great progress and that is really
> appreciated in view of a great product at some later time, it makes it
> hard to use for now. (So that I decided not to put any "scipy"-effort
> into code I write for now.)
The biggest problems was with linalg, and it was related to the fact that
Pearu changed f2py for the better, but did so withouth changing the
interface to linalg (who can blame him we all do this in our "spare"
I disagree with this. I've been using the current CVS copy of SciPy
regularly for my work and my teaching and had no real problem until this
linalg thing came up.
I think you are taking the exception for the rule.
Regarding the umbrella verses modules approach. SciPy is an umbrella
package. I used to distribute lots of modules separately. I'm not going
back to that approach. For me it's too much trouble to make sure they
work together. SciPy ensures that they do work together.
If others want to grab pieces of SciPy and make them available cleanly,
then they naturally have that right. There are too many things to do to
get SciPy to where we want it to worry about distributing all the modules
I won't be upset if other people make them available, but I doubt I'll
spend much time worrying about it. Sorry. I'd like to be helpful, but
I've just got to draw the line somewhere.
> If you guys can keep that work up (and it looks like that), just go
> ahead and come back with a great product. This is a long way to go,
Why do you think that. How "far" is it for you. What's missing. With
the linalg fixes and the "stats" fixes it's a lot farther than you think.
What packages are people so opposed to that they don't want to install all
of SciPy. I've never heard anybody discuss that. We instead speak
hypothetically. Let's talk about the real problems if they exist.
More information about the Scipy-dev