[Numpy-discussion] My GSoC Proposal to Implement a Subset of NumPy for PyPy

Travis Oliphant oliphant@enthought....
Tue Apr 20 07:58:26 CDT 2010

On Apr 16, 2010, at 11:50 PM, Dan Roberts wrote:

> Hello NumPy Users,
>     Hi everybody, my name is Dan Roberts, and my Google Summer of  
> Code proposal was categorized under NumPy rather than PyPy, so it  
> will end up being reviewed by mentors for the NumPy project.  I'd  
> like to take this chance to introduce myself and my proposal.
>     I hadn't prepared for review by the NumPy mentors, but this can  
> make my proposal stronger than before.  With a bit of help from all  
> of you, I can dedicate my summer to creating more useful code than I  
> would have previously. I realize that from the perspective of NumPy,  
> my proposal might seem lacking, so I'd like to also invite the  
> scrutiny of all of the readers of this list.
>     Why should we bother reimplimenting anything?  PyPy, for those  
> who are unfamiliar, has the ability to Just-in-Time compile itself  
> and programs that it's running.  One of the major advantages of this  
> is that code operating on NumPy arrays could potentially be written  
> in pure-python, with normal looping constructs, and be nearly as  
> fast as a ufunc painstakingly crafted in C.  I'd love to see as much  
> Python and as little C as possible, and I'm sure I'm not alone in  
> that wish.
>     A short introduction: I've been coding in Python for the past  
> few years, and have increasingly become interested in speeding up  
> what has become my favorite language. To that end I've become  
> interested in both the PyPy project and the NumPy projects. I've  
> spent a fair amount of time frustrating the PyPy developers with  
> silly questions, written a bit of code for them, and now my GSoC  
> proposal involves both them, and NumPy.
>     Finally, I'd like to ask all of you: what features are most  
> important to you? It's not practical, wise, or even possible for me  
> to reimpliment more than a small portion of NumPy, but if I can  
> address the most important parts, maybe I can make this project  
> useful enough for some of you to use, and close enough for the rest  
> of you that I can drum up some support for more development in the  
> future.
>      My proposal lives at http://codespeak.net/~dan/gsoc/micronumpy.html 
>  thanks for making it this far through my long winded introduction!   
> I welcome all constructive criticism and thoughts.

Hi Daniel,

This sounds like a great project, and I think it has promise.   I  
would especially pay attention to the requests to make it easy to  
write ufuncs and generalized ufuncs in RPython.   That has the most  
possibility of being immediately useful.

Your timing is also very good.    I am going to be spending some time  
re-factoring NumPy to separate out the CPython interface from the  
underlying algorithms.   I think this re-factoring should help you in  
your long-term goals.   If you have any input or suggestions while the  
refactoring is taking place, we are always open to suggestions and  

Thanks for writing a NumPy-related proposal.

Best regards,


> Thanks,
> Daniel Roberts
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Travis Oliphant
Enthought Inc.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100420/df3683b1/attachment.html 

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list