[SciPy-user] complex vector scalar product: wrong implementation

[Perry Greenfield]

Vladimir Roudnev wrote:
> Lance Boyle wrote:
> 
Something that many people that wander into Numeric assume is that it
is entirely focused on linear algebra. In their world, that is their
focus. But it isn't the case for Numeric. That's why the multiply 
operator doesn't do matriz multiplication (many have been upset at
that too). It's an array package where element-by-element operations
are the primary focus.  And as hard as it may be to believe, there
are those for which that is their primary focus.

I wasn't there when these names were assigned, but I imagine that
dot and innerproduct reflect that focus, and it is unfortunate that
those cases are bad choices as far as names go, but it's been that way
for many years.

> > It has been bugs like this that have appeared in scipy in the past 
> > that have kept me a casual reader of this list. I simply don't have 
> > time to write test cases for numerical software when there exist other 
> > alternatives that have been tested for me.
> 
> I'm just starting trying Python for my computations. Your comment makes 
> me feeling that the innerproduct() design problem is not the only one, 
> isn't it? I wonder if there is any good in relying on scipy developing a 
> serious project? Is it designed so badly in general? I've met a major 
> problem on the very first session... What's your opinion?
> 
Hey, no one is making you use it. Lots of us find Python great for this
sort of thing. Does that mean that you won't find problems (or that
things weren't done the way you would have done them)? Of course not.
Is scipy a finished, polished product? No. If that is what you want,
go elsewhere (that's only my humble opinion). There's matlab, IDL,
OCTAVE, J, etc., or you can do things in Fortran, C++ or whatever
you please (but I suspect that you weren't entirely happy with those
or you wouldn't be looking at scipy). If you want to contribute to 
improving scipy, that would be great, but understand, like anything,
else, there are things like this that have some history to them and
may not be changed just because you don't like it.

> The other thread suggests that there are some performance issues 
> as well...
> 
Based on that one (unsubstantiated) data point, I guess you have
all you need to know about the issue.

Perry