[SciPy-dev] the scipy mission, include finite element solver

Ondrej Certik ondrej@certik...
Fri Apr 10 05:57:39 CDT 2009


On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Prabhu Ramachandran
<prabhu@aero.iitb.ac.in> wrote:
> On 04/10/09 14:16, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>> Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
>>> On 04/09/09 18:04, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>>> The "workflow" of the average sciuentific programmer has a big potential
>>>> for improvement, and one cannot bring that about by further
>>>> fragmentation.
>>> I was not advocating fragmentation, any viable solution would be fine.
>>> IIRC, SPD itself is based on Sage and surely there will be some exchange
>>> of code/ideas between Sage and SPD at some time.  However, given a
>>> choice I would prefer a modular set of packages rather than one
>>> monolithic monster. I haven't delved into all the existing solutions
>>
>> I just wanted to comment on the monolithic monster thing: It does have its
>> advantages too. For instance R is included and can be depended upon by any
>> Sage script.
>
> Apologies for sounding like someone who is against Sage.  Just for the
> record, I really like Sage and do promote it quite a bit over here.
>
> I think we are digressing.  My point was I never thought that scipy is
> itself a distribution and Robert's comments seem to justify my stance.
> Python(x,y), EPD and Sage all are and Sage also does a whole lot more
> than just bundle stuff.  So bundling PDE tools in scipy doesn't seem
> like the right solution to me.  Thats all.

Yes, but you may use the same kind of argument to support that scipy
should not exist at all and you should just always create a new
project for whatever you do and use Sage to bundle it together.

So it's just a question where to draw the line and I think it's clear
now from this thread that PDE doesn't belong to scipy.

Ondrej


More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list