[SciPy-dev] MCMC, Kalman Filtering, AI for SciPy?

Charles Harris charles.harris at sdl.usu.edu
Mon Sep 27 18:29:03 CDT 2004

Pearu Peterson wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Charles Harris wrote:
>> eric jones wrote:
>>> Where should these live?
>>> monte carlo and markov chain might fit in scipy.stats?
>> How about in monte_carlo or some such? I think there is too much 
>> stuff put in odd places. Why is zeros in optimize? Makes no sense, 
>> but there it is.  I don't think now is the time to change all the 
>> directories around, but I hope we give some thought to the 
>> organization before it becomes unmanageable. The Dewey decimal 
>> classification was an achievement I am coming to appreciate.
> I agree that tools provided by Scipy are not organized well with 
> respect to the mathematical subject that they deal with and so finding 
> the needed tool for some specific task may not be always easy. And I 
> agree that this issue should be tackled as early stage as possible in 
> Scipy evolution, otherwise it will get more and more difficult to 
> decide where to put contributions from the society and there is a 
> danger of postponing such decisions to an unreachable future..
> The current organization of Scipy packages is mostly based on underlying
> Fortran/C libraries and that is obviously not the best way to organize
> any high-level scientific tool.
> While Chuck mentioned Dewey decimal classification then there are other
> classification schemes available. For example, MSC 
> (http://www.ams.org/msc/). A nice overview of MSC can be found in
>   http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/index.html
> I don't know how well could these classification schemes be used
> for organizing Scipy packages, may be we should take a look how Matlab 
> or Maple or Mathematica deal with organizing their tools.
>> From the maintenance point of view, IMHO, wrappers to external Fortran/C 
> libraries should be refactored from scipy packages to some "lib" 
> package. For example, there would be packages like
>   scipy.lib.blas
>   scipy.lib.lapack
>   scipy.lib.fftpack
>   scipy.lib.minpack
>   scipy.lib.cephes
>   scipy.lib.odepack
>   scipy.lib.quadpack
>   scipy.lib.fitpack
>   scipy.lib.minpack
>   scipy.lib.superlu
>   scipy.lib.amos
>   scipy.lib.cdflib
>   etc
Hey, I like that idea a *lot*.

> and they will be used by higher level packages like
>   scipy.linalg
>   scipy.linalg.sparse
>   scipy.stats
>   scipy.optimize
>   scipy.special
>   etc.
> These higher level packages can be organized by whatever scheme will 
> be chosen, the scheme may be changed or even replaced in future, but the
> core of scipy, scipy.lib, that contains most of the hard work in 
> scipy, should stay as constant as possible.
> Please, send suggestions on how to better organize scipy high-level 
> packages.
> Thanks,
> Pearu
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-dev mailing list
> Scipy-dev at scipy.net
> http://www.scipy.net/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev

More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list