[SciPy-dev] Re: [AstroPy] Python version of IDL Astron library
eric at enthought.com
Tue Sep 14 14:03:20 CDT 2004
Fernando Perez wrote:
> eric jones wrote:
>>>>> 2. Matplotlib for all plotting. Try it. You'll like it!
>> While I agree, I also appreciate the amount of progress that
>> matplotlib has made. In some sense, it takes the pressure off of
>> Chaco. For overall development efficiency in the long run, I believe
>> it would have been better if the matplotlib energy had gone into
>> Chaco. Perry and the STSci team tried though, and didn't make the
>> headway the wished for. So, in the short run, I don't think as
>> usable of a tool would have resulted as soon -- we just didn't have
>> the resources to coordinate with the community over the last year to
>> fix the deficiencies that made it difficult for scientist to use.
> I've been one of those waiting for chaco since its first announcement,
> and my approach was to use Gnuplot2 (IPython's Gnuplot.py extensions)
> while Chaco evolved. But this has taken a while, and in the meantime
> for day to day scientific use matplotlib has rapidly matured. So I
> actually think it will work out for the best in the long run: those of
> us who need something better than gnuplot/grace now have a realistic
> option to switch. I hope it's clear that I'm NOT bashing Chaco in any
> way, but those of us who needed high quality EPS 6 months or a year
> ago simply couln't wait for it :)
> We should not underestimate that having these tools _today_ makes it
> much easier to 'sell' python to new scientific users. I've committed
> effort on ipython to coexist with matplotlib as efficiently as
> possible precisely because I believe this is an important piece of the
> Matplotlib's existence also gives Chaco room to breathe and develop as
> it needs, at its pace. I'm sure that in the future, useful
> Chaco/matplotlib cross-feedback will occur when that makes sense.
> Perhaps we all would have wanted J. Hunter to hack on Chaco for the
> last year. But at least now we have two viable systems, one which
> works today and the other which is building a very solid foundation
> for the future. I can only see this as a good thing in the long run.
This is exactly what I was trying to say, but perhaps not as well.
Having a solution sooner fixes many issues, and that is very beneficial
for the reasons you mention. However, from a strictly person-hours
required to reach the long term goal of a utopian plotting toolkit, it
would be more efficient to have all hands working on the same project.
There are alwasy tradeoffs, and I think that the current situation (two
packages) is not bad at all.
> Scipy-dev mailing list
> Scipy-dev at scipy.net
More information about the Scipy-dev