Hi, presently we are using python+Numeric+scipy in a course on computational physics (if you are interested, you can have a look at http://www.comp-phys.tu-dresden.de/cp2003/ - however most of the material there is in German). In order to get more detailed feedback from the students (in addition to the tutorial sessions) we ran a questionnaire. Here I would like to summarize the main points for the list: 1.) Documentation was generally considered as pretty bad (see below for a "histogramm" - the strongest opinion was "complete rewrite") Main wishes: - more extensive documentation - examples for the routines - help browser a la mathematica 2.) Various issues - differing behaviour of scipy.xplt between M$Windows and Linux (in particular dynamic plots) - problems with interpreting error messages - Linux installation (presently) much more difficult than for M$Windows. As usual, the above only raises the critical points - overall the feedback was definitively positive! In particular the students liked very much to quickly code graphical output (including mouse interactions) and dynamical plots. Also it was appreciated that it is freely available and all of the students either installed python+Numeric+scipy under MSWindows (most) or linux (just a few) at home. Arnd Statistics: (marks range from 1 to 6, with 1 being best and 6 worst; =========== just the normal German school marks ;-) General happiness with python: very good 1 good 2 ||||||||| . 3 |||||| . 4 . 5 | very bad 6 | Documentation: Python Numeric scipy very good 1 | | good 2 |||| . 3 || |||| ||| . 4 |||| ||||| ||||||| . 5 || || || very bad 6 || ||| ||
On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 13:55 Europe/Rome, Arnd Baecker wrote:
Hi,
presently we are using python+Numeric+scipy in a course on computational physics (if you are interested, you can have a look at http://www.comp-phys.tu-dresden.de/cp2003/ - however most of the material there is in German). In order to get more detailed feedback from the students (in addition to the tutorial sessions) we ran a questionnaire. Here I would like to summarize the main points for the list:
1.) Documentation was generally considered as pretty bad (see below for a "histogramm" - the strongest opinion was "complete rewrite") [snip]
I agree with your students. As a Python+Numeric+SciPy beginner, the main problem that I face with, is the missing documentation. Can we hope in some improovement in near future? Thanks, Andrea. --- Andrea Riciputi "Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it" -- (Richard Feynman)
1.) Documentation was generally considered as pretty bad (see below for a "histogramm" - the strongest opinion was "complete rewrite") [snip]
I agree with your students. As a Python+Numeric+SciPy beginner, the main problem that I face with, is the missing documentation. Can we hope in some improovement in near future?
Maybe if students can receive high marks for writing good documentation? :) But, seriously, I'm still waiting for the SciPyWiki. I think it would be a great way to create a large information pool on SciPy and related topics. bye, Kasper
Kasper Souren wrote:
1.) Documentation was generally considered as pretty bad (see below for a "histogramm" - the strongest opinion was "complete rewrite") [snip]
I agree with your students. As a Python+Numeric+SciPy beginner, the main problem that I face with, is the missing documentation. Can we hope in some improovement in near future?
Maybe if students can receive high marks for writing good documentation? :)
But, seriously, I'm still waiting for the SciPyWiki. I think it would be a great way to create a large information pool on SciPy and related topics.
I'm working on getting Zwiki up and running on scipy.org, but it isn't cooperating with me...Probably won't be long though. -- Joe Cooper <joe@enthought.com>
participants (4)
-
Andrea Riciputi -
Arnd Baecker -
Joe Cooper -
Kasper Souren