Mon Mar 19 10:03:08 CDT 2007
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:51:24PM +0100, Håkan Jakobsson wrote:
> Thanks everyone for your replies, they have been most helpful. I've studied
> the pros and cons for python, and I'm fairly sure I'll be using python more
> and more.
But wait! It's not over yet!
I'm part of a team working on an FEM project at NIST which
uses Python quite heavily. Our brief is to address Materials
Science users, so we have a lot of custom tools for adapting
our mesh to user-provided microstructural image, and we also
have an extensible interface for adding new types of
user-provided custom constitutive rules. The actual FEM
part is pretty standard.
Our numerical work and solvers are all in C++,
and we don't actually use SciPy/NumPy, we just use SWIG
to get to the numerical code.
The flexibility of Python has been crucial in working through
our API and mesh-construction tools -- it has the right level of
easy scriptability, and the right sort of object-orientation,
for what we need.
The project page is at <http://www.ctcms.nist.gov/oof>,
and there's a relatively recent talk (in PDF form) at
which very strongly resembles the talk I gave at SciPy2006.
Dr. Andrew C. E. Reid, Guest Researcher
Center for Theoretical and Computational Materials Science
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Mail Stop 8910
Gaithersburg MD 20899 USA
More information about the SciPy-user