[SciPy-User] Pylab - standard packages

Almar Klein a.klein@science-applied...
Fri Sep 21 06:40:10 CDT 2012

> Almar has already spoken against specifying an interface. I'm actually
> leaning the other way, although I accept that I could be biased by my
> role in IPython. For introductory tutorials, I think it would be very
> valuable to have a common interface, so we can describe, say, what to
> press to run some code. Otherwise, users would be put off by having to
> try to apply a generalised tutorial to their particular environment,
> and interpret screenshots that don't match what they see. In
> particular, the IPython notebook is a very different model from most
> IDEs.

Of course, I'm biased too, by my role in IEP :)  I suppose I could live
with specifying IPython as part of the base, for the reasons that you point
out. As an analogy, Tk is included with Python, but GUI toolkits like Qt
can still flourish.

My main objection it that any chosen interface should not be implied as
*the* interface. For instance, Python(x,y) should still be pylab compliant
even though it uses Spyder as an interface. I suppose it's not hard for
Python(x,y) to include the IPython executable in the distribution. (As
opposed to integrating an IPython kernel with Spyder, which is obviosuly
much harder.)

Further, you made a point about being able to share richer code documents
specific to the chosen interface. I strongly think that we should make
sharing code independent of the interface. Of course, withing a specific
user group, users are free to use specific formats, my point is that it
should not be encouraged from pylab.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-user/attachments/20120921/9a7ea078/attachment.html 

More information about the SciPy-User mailing list