Python advocacy in scientific computation

[Cameron Laird]

In article <1139937227.379829.215090 at z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Michael Tobis <mtobis at gmail.com> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>Among the Python components and Python bindings of special interest to
>scientists are the elegant and powerful matplotlib plotting package,
>which began by emulating and now surpasses the plotting features of
>Matlab, SWIG, which allows for runtime interoperability with various
>languages, f2py which specifically interoperates with Fortran, NetCDF
>libraries (which cope with NetCDF files with dramatically less fuss
>than the standard C or Fortran bindings), statistics packages including
>bindings to the R language,  linear algebra packages,  various
>platform-specific and portable GUI libraries, genetic algorithms,
>optimization libraries, and bindings for high performance differential
>equation solvers (notably, using the Argonne National Laboratory
>package PetSC). An especially interesting Python trick for runtime
>visualization in models that were not designed to support it, pioneered
>by David Beazley's SWILL, embeds a web server in your model code.
>
>See especially http://starship.python.net/~hinsen/ScientificPython/ and
>http://scipy.org as good starting points to learn about scientific uses
>of Python.
>
>mt
>

Lovely; putting a copy here is a great service to others.

I want a few subtle changes.  I applaud the slogan about how Python
encompasses the best of Matlab and Java (among others); I like to
think that'll get through.  In that vicinity would be a good place,
if practical, to work in mention that:
A.  Python is *excellent* for long-lasting and/or
    group work;
B.  Python's licensing is friendly;
C.  It's a real language, and therefore generalizes
    far better than Matlab; and
D.  Has an unrivaled span of practicality, so that 
    learning it enables a researcher to tackle a 
    wide variety of software taskes.
You touch on these matters, but I think that section might be pro-
pitious for promoting them, perhaps along with
E.  Python's ease-of-learning and successful record
    in the hands of children, scientists, and other
    casual practitioners.

Also, my instinct is to underline that this stuff is REAL.  David
Beazley was winning awards with his scientific Python-Fortran
marriage back in the '90s.  Perhaps your audience doesn't need so
much convincing on that point ...