[SciPy-dev] SciPy Foundation
Tue Aug 4 14:41:00 CDT 2009
I fully agree with your analysis Robert.
I had this discussion with Eric, and he did mention that it would be
useful if the name was reminiscent of 'SciPy', because it is a higly
Should we have a BOF on that at the SciPy conference? Mailing list
discussions tend to go in a circle.
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 02:37:01PM -0500, Robert Kern wrote:
> Perhaps a new name would be in order. I think a lot of the
> disagreement in vision arises from the fact that a number of the very
> good ideas about how to encourage the use of Python in the sciences,
> which could be implemented by the people involved in
> SciPy-the-project, are being conflated with scipy-the-package. Things
> like IDEs and GUIs and applications do not fit into scipy-the-package
> as it currently exists, and changing scipy-the-package such that they
> do fit in deteriorates what scipy-the-package is good at now.
> Personally, I see scipy-the-package as something very close in spirit
> to what GSL is to C: a library of quality numerical algorithms useful
> to science and engineering. scipy-the-package is not everything that
> is required to advance Python's use in the sciences. It can't be. A
> single Python package is the wrong technology for delivering all of
> that functionality.
> I think we need to step back and question the question itself. Perhaps
> we should not be asking "where should scipy(-the-package) be heading?"
> but "what do we need to do advance Python's use in the sciences?" I
> don't think a Foundation helps the former much, but I do think the
> latter would be an excellent mission for one. scipy-the-package is a
> component of what the Foundation might work one, but I think it would
> make a huge mistake if it fixated on scipy-the-package and assumed
> that all of the work it does needs to be jammed into
More information about the Scipy-dev