[Numpy-discussion] Openmp support (was numpy's future (1.1 and beyond): which direction(s) ?)

[Charles R Harris]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Charles R Harris
> > > <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Maybe it's time to revisit the template subsystem I pulled out of
> > Django.
> > >
> > > I am still -lots on using the Django template system. Please, please,
> > > please, look at Jinja or another templating package that could be
> > > dropped in without *any* modification.
> > >
> >
> > Well, I have a script that pulls the relevant parts out of Django. I
> know
> > you had a bad experience, but...
> > That said, Jinja looks interesting. It uses the Django syntax, which was
> one
> > of the things I liked most about Django templates. In fact, it looks
> pretty
> > much like Django templates made into a standalone application, which is
> what
> > I was after. However, it's big, the installed egg is about 1Mib, which
> is
> > roughly 12x the size as my cutdown version of Django, and it has some
> > c-code, so would need building.
>
> The C code is optional.
>
> > On the other hand, it also looks like it
> > contains a lot of extraneous stuff, like translations, that could be
> > removed. Would you be adverse to adding it in if it looks useful?
>
> I would still *really* prefer that you use a single-file templating
> module at the expense of template aesthetics and even features. I am
> still unconvinced that we need more features. You haven't shown me any
> concrete examples. If we do the features of a larger package that we
> need to cut down, I'd prefer a package that we can cut down by simply
> removing files, not one that requires the modification of files.
>

If you simply pull out the template subsystem, it is about 1Mib, which is
why Jinja looks like Django to me. If you remove extraneous files from
Django, and probably Jinja, it comes down to about 400K. If you go on to
remove extraneous capabilities it drops down to < 100K. It could all be made
into a single file. In fact I had a lot of Django rewritten with that in
mind. Well, that and the fact I can't leave code untouched. What I liked
about the idea, besides the syntax with if statements, nested for loops,
includes, and a few filters, is that it allowed moving some of the common
code out of the source and into higher level build files where variable
values and flags could be set, making the whole build process more
transparent and adaptable. That said, it is hard to beat the compactness of
the current version.

Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20080324/779e198d/attachment.html>