[SciPy-dev] SciPy improvements
Thu Apr 12 18:45:15 CDT 2007
Ondrej Certik wrote:
> 3) about the logistics transforamtion - I was sceptical too, until I
> tried that and it was converging faster by a factor of 7x on my
> problem (chemev). So for me it's enough justification, but of course I
> am not saying that it must converge faster for any problem.
I'm sure it works faster; I'd just like to make sure that it always gives the
> 4) About the petsc - I know it's another dependence. However, I
> noticed you are using umfpack in SciPy. So why not petsc? I think it
> contains much more (sometimes better) solvers (depends on the
> problem). It's seems logical to me, to either use nothing, or the best
> library available, which I believe is petsc.
Well, I wasn't as much of a dependency/no-optional-features freak when the
optional UMFPACK stuff went in. Also, IIRC the wrappers for UMFPACK were written
specifically for scipy; they didn't exist as a separate package beforehand.
petsc4py already exists. Unless if we decide that some other feature of scipy
needs it, there is no reason that I can see for bringing it into the scipy package.
> 5)documentation: the front page is quite fine, however the
> documentation needs complete redesign in my opinion. First - I believe
> the numpy should be separated from SciPy and have it's own page
> (numpy.org), but if you think it belongs under the hood of scipy.org,
> then ok.
> So, I'll copy the page:
> into some new one, and redesign it as I would like it to be, and then
> you'll tell me what you think about it. The same with other pages if
> I'll get a better idea about them. This way I shouldn't spoil anything
> in case you wouldn't like it. Because I don't have just couple of
> small fixes.
As you like. Thank you!
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the Scipy-dev