[SciPy-Dev] Consensus on the future of integrate.ode
Tue Sep 10 03:44:36 CDT 2013
2013/9/9 Juan Luis Cano <email@example.com>
> On 09/09/2013 10:27 AM, Geoff Oxberry wrote:
> PETSc and scipy are trying to do different, but related things. PETSc and
> petsc4py are trying to provide a software platform for developing
> computational science applications that can run on anything from desktops
> with a single processor to a Blue Gene/Q with tens or hundreds of thousands
> of processors.
> SciPy is more geared towards rapid prototyping and computational
> exploration on a single processor, so it helps to have a more intuitive
> API, preferably something like MATLAB since that's so prevalent in
> education, and a lot of people who use SciPy come from a MATLAB background.
> Even though the licenses are compatible, I'm not sure you'd want to
> incorporate elements of petsc4py into SciPy (although it would be
> incredibly cool to be able to use any of their extremely long list of ODE
> or DAE solvers).
> I think this is a good point that has been made. Maybe we could aim for a
> less complex package that fits our (more modest) needs.
> The non sundials solvers in odes are also not as state of the art as
>> some that are added in above two interfaces.
>> The problem with above packages is their license and the fact that they
>> are packages with parsing language, ..., see eg:
> What if we just stay with your odes? It's still a big improvement, perhaps
> a good tradeoff between state of the art algorithms, simplicity and
> licensing compatibility.
Yes, for current scipy it would be a logical evolution.
For my own work though I might need more complex stuff present in sundials
and not exposed yet like in PETsc (preconditioning, krylov, parallel). But
then, these things can be added as needed, and as PETsc has a nice license,
we are allowed to look at it without fear of contamination.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SciPy-Dev