Hi,
Thanks
Vick
-Original Message-
From: Laura Creighton [mailto:l...@openend.se]
Sent: Sunday, 12 April, 2015 15:30
To: Vick
Cc: 'Laura Creighton'; 'William Ray Wing'; webmas...@python.org;
tutor@python.org; l...@openend.se
Subject: Re: [Tutor] On learning
In a message of Sun, 12 Apr 2015 10:25:54 +0400, "Vick" writes:
>S 0 to 1e+31> 1/sqrt(.86 *(1+z)^4 + .282 * (1+z)^3 - .86
>*(1+z)^2 + .718) if you try this integration you will get completely
>wrong numbers on computing devices that do not possess ultra-high precision
>and accuracy.
Vick wrote:
> So can Fortran crunch 250 digits numbers in an integration formula under 3
> seconds with the same computing parameters as above? Or is Python better
> at it?
So by better you mean faster.
Pure CPython is usually much slower than Fortran, but as there are many
optimised libraries
]
Sent: Saturday, 11 April, 2015 20:57
To: William Ray Wing
Cc: Vick; webmas...@python.org; tutor@python.org; l...@openend.se
Subject: Re: [Tutor] On learning Fortran and C++ for scientific computing
These days, most important scientific libraries are wrapped so that you call
call them directly fr
These days, most important scientific libraries are wrapped so that you
call call them directly from python. Google for "python bindings " and see if you get any hits. If you have a library
that doesn't have python bindings, you can probably make them. Start
reading here:
http://intermediate-and-
