[SciPy-user] Subject: Re: Scientific Python publications

Matthew Brett matthew.brett@gmail....
Sun Nov 4 12:53:22 CST 2007


On 11/4/07, C.J.Lee@tnw.utwente.nl <C.J.Lee@tnw.utwente.nl> wrote:
> Perhaps a compromise(for the moment) is to provide both. So minimal matlab scripting to allow publishable and the full python code also available. That way the phd students learn that there is an alternative available and the matlab *only* attitude will die out with retirements. This way you meet the requirements for the peer review and you can grow the python neuroimaging community

Yes, that was more or less exactly our pitch to the NIH in the grant
that got funded recently.

> It might also be interesting to attempt publishing results which show the differences in functionality between the matlab based code and python based code, particularly if you can find a test case where the matlab toolbox is definitively wrong. (I am not involved in neuroimaging so I can't really say anything about the feasibility of this)

I should say, in fairness, that the algorithms in SPM are generally
very good, and I have found the main maintainer of SPM to be very
generous and open-minded.  For example, he wrote a very helpful and
thoughtful letter of recommendation for our grant.  For me, my main
problem with SPM is matlab, and the very great difficulty of building
a productive architecture with matlab.  I'm quite sure we can build
something much more fruitful in python, and would like to provide that
as a service to the community, including the SPM community, of which
I'm a long-time member.


More information about the SciPy-user mailing list