[AstroPy] Proliferating py-astro-libs

Perry Greenfield perry at stsci.edu
Fri Jun 10 09:48:55 EDT 2011


On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:12 PM, Thomas Robitaille wrote:

> I just wanted to also add that (in agreement with Marshall) I'm all  
> in favor of many small modules that accomplish a particular task  
> well, rather than packages that aim for a 'do-it-all' approach and  
> fall short. It's always possible to bundle small packages together  
> afterwards, and I don't mean merge development, but instead just  
> bundling the packages for installation (kind of like EPD). I think  
> that is the easiest approach for all of us.
>
> Maybe in the long run, a specific set of core packages will emerge  
> as essential and we can then talk about truly merging them into a  
> scipy-like package, but for now, I think the race is still on. And  
> after all, there's nothing to say we *have* to achieve the same  
> setup as in IDL.

It sure seems to me that the time is ripe to start trying to coalesce  
some of the ongoing efforts.

Mind you, I don't think it is necessarily good to start with only one  
version. Allowing a few different approaches initially has its  
benefits. You get to see more approaches and ideas in play and having  
experience with them is very helpful in deciding which one is more  
productive. And sometimes there is room for more than one in the long  
run. The different approaches may have their own niches. But it is  
hard to imagine any long-term need for more than two or three  
different approaches.

Early on there are some pragmatic needs for different approaches. For  
example, having a fairly "literal" translation of IDL tools into  
Python has its benefit. It is very useful for those that would like to  
migrate IDL code, and given the existing IDL versions, make it much  
easier to test their correctness. But I don't see this as a substitute  
for a good set of modular tools that have a better object design and  
consistent interfaces with other modules. Doing this is more work and  
will take more time. So a need for both approaches is likely. Some  
could argue the same for replacing IRAF tasks.

All this is much easier said than done of course.

I wish STScI had more resources to devote to this than we've actually  
had. We've been planning to do more on this front than we've actually  
done. Things come up repeatedly that ruin these plans. But it may be  
worth saying where some of our current efforts are going that may  
overlap some of these other efforts.

1) We've been planning (along with Gemini, and particularly James  
Turner), to try to develop some Sage-like installation package that  
would make it easy to install all the basic tools for most  
astronomers. We had hoped to have a beta version out, but one of the  
people working on this left at the end of last year, and we've not  
been able to replace that person. We are going to continue this effort  
with existing staff though. Hopefully in a few months we'll have  
something to try out.

2) There is a recognition that a more serious effort needs to be made  
to replace IRAF functionality. Perhaps one of the benefits of a JWST  
delay is that it will allow us to do some of that work more  
explicitly. But we would not do it by replacing IRAF tasks one-for-one  
but coming up with an entirely different approach which has to start  
from the bottom up (the end result could have applications that mostly  
emulate IRAF tasks, but also provide much more modular tools).

3) More specifically, we are currently focussing on how to handle WCS  
issues in a more general way than they are handled in FITS. If there  
is interest, perhaps we should say more about the intended approach.  
This is particularly important for replacing spectrographic tools in  
IRAF, and this is where we are starting our effort.

4) We need a way of saving these WCS models, and FITS is not the way.  
We are looking at an alternate data format, not just for WCS models,  
but for data in general [gasp!]. Work has begun on this too.

5) A lot of our recent work has been on pysynphot and ETCs. We plan on  
making the computational part of our ETCs a released tool. But I'm  
also wondering if we can generalize the pysynphot spectral models for  
more general use in spectral tools.

6) We have been working on a framework for making pipelines easier to  
build and configure. That won't be ready for at least a few months,  
but could well be of general interest and use.

But besides these things, I would like to see if we can't begin the  
effort of narrowing some of the underlying libraries being used. FITS  
WCS is one obvious area that seems ripe for that.

But the community ought to identify one or two areas that are of the  
most interest in consolidating (let's start small). What should we  
start with? Focus is important in making any progress in this area.

Perry






More information about the AstroPy mailing list