You are still missing the point that there was already a choice that was made in the previous class --- made in Numeric actually.
You made a change to that. It is the change that is 'gratuitous'. The pain and unnecessary overhead of having two competing standards is the problem --- not whether one is 'right' or not. That is a different discussion entirely. -- Travis Oliphant (on a mobile) 512-826-7480 On Jun 25, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Perry Greenfield <pe...@stsci.edu> wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Perry Greenfield <pe...@stsci.edu> > > wrote: > > > > It's hard to generalize that much here. There are some areas in what > > you say is true, particularly if whole industries rely on libraries > > that have much time involved in developing them, and for which it is > > particularly difficult to break away. But there are plenty of other > > areas where it isn't that hard. > > > > I'd characterize the process a bit differently. I would agree that it > > is pretty hard to get someone who has been using matlab or IDL for > > many years to transition. That doesn't happen very often (if it does, > > it's because all the other people they work with are using a different > > tool and they are forced to). I think we are targeting the younger > > people; those that do not have a lot of experience tied up in matlab > > or IDL. For example, IDL is very well established in astronomy, and > > we've seen few make that switch if they already have been using IDL > > for a while. But we are seeing many more younger astronomers choose > > Python over IDL these days. > > > > I didn't bring up the Astronomy experience, but I think that is a > > special case because it is a fairly small area and to some extent > > you had the advantage of a supported center, STSci, maintaining some > > software. There are also a lot of amateurs who can appreciate the > > low costs and simplicity of Python. > > > > The software engineers use tends to be set early, in college or in > > their first jobs. I suspect that these days professional astronomers > > spend a number of years in graduate school where they have time to > > experiment a bit. That is a nice luxury to have. > > > Sure. But it's not unusual for an invasive technology (that's us) to > take root in certain niches before spreading more widely. > > Another way of looking at such things is: is what we are seeking to > replace that much worse? If the gains are marginal, then it is very > hard to displace. But if there are significant advantages, eventually > they will win through. I tend to think Python and the scientific stack > does offer the potential for great advantages over IDL or matlab. But > that doesn't make it easy. > > I didn't say we couldn't make inroads. The original proposition was that we > needed a polynomial class compatible with Matlab. I didn't think > compatibility with Matlab mattered so much in that case because not many > people switch, as you have agreed is the case, and those who start fresh, or > are the adventurous sort, can adapt without a problem. In other words, IMHO, > it wasn't a pressing issue and could be decided on the merits of the > interface, which I thought of in terms of series approximation. In > particular, it wasn't a 'gratuitous' choice as I had good reasons to do > things the way I did. > > Chuck > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
