[SciPy-user] Python evangelism question: procedural programming
Fri Aug 3 13:57:04 CDT 2007
Thanks for all the replies. I appreciate your thoughts.
No I have a dumb question: what is the easiest way to get him a link
to these responses, since he obviously doesn't subscribe to this list.
Does it take a few days to get into Gmane? Can he see the whole
thread there easily? Is there a better way?
On 8/3/07, Fernando Perez <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/07, Gael Varoquaux <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 09:55:17AM -0500, Ryan Krauss wrote:
> > > So, he wanted to know if Python could be used like Mathematica in
> > > terms of writing rule and procedure based programs. I don't know how
> > > difficult this would be.
> > I think I understand what he means. Python can almost be used like this,
> > but there is the UI missing. Ipython is currently working on a "notebook"
> > UI that would address this problem. I have developped my own workflow
> > using a home made script ("pyreport"
> > http://gael-varoquaux.info/computers/pyreport/ ) to approach this
> > workflow. Ultimately I want to merge this with ipython's effort in order
> > to get nice notebook functionnality with html and pdf output, but
> > xurrently I don't have time for this.
> You better make time soon. Min has already written a plaintext dump
> format for the notebook, you'll be getting an email about that in a
> minute. We need you :)
> But back to the OP, I think the issue Ryan's colleague has isn't
> addressed by a notebook interface, nor by SAGE (as great as SAGE is).
> Mathematica's programming model/language can be very tricky to wrap
> your head around, but it allows you to do *phenomenal* things in very
> concise way, that would be extremely clunky in Python or any other
> language I can think of.
> Mathematica is very lisp-ish in its model, and its syntax for building
> complex programs can be quirky, and its encapsulation model is rather
> poor. But for rule-based programming it's hard to beat, it exposes
> every object it has in a completely uniform way so that you can do
> abstract manipulations on them, and it has very rich transformation
> facilities. Doing things like "take an arbitrarily nested object,
> traverse it and replace every instance of '(x-y)^4' by a polynomial
> over z^2" are one-liners in Mathematica.
> Honestly I'd say that if Ryan's colleague has a lot of code like that,
> Python is NOT the answer for him. Rather, he should learn to use
> Python because it *complements* Mathematica very well. Python is
> good, easy to use and convenient to work with precisely at many of the
> things that Mathematica is clunky for. They obviously have a lot of
> overlap, and I personally use Python where they overlap simply because
> I'm more proficient in Python these days. I'm sure he could go for
> Mathematica in that region for the same reasons.
> But there is definitely a domain where Mathematica is simply
> unbeatable, and that goes beyond the obvious triad of (notebook,
> symbolics, easy-to-control pervasive arbitrary precision).
> These days my working toolbox is more or less just Python+Mathematica,
> for these very reasons (and Python obviously includes C/C++/Fortran as
> needed for low-level/speed work).
> SciPy-user mailing list
More information about the SciPy-user