[Numpy-discussion] A roadmap for NumPy - longer term planning

Jarrod Millman millman at berkeley.edu
Fri Jun 1 17:31:00 EDT 2018

I like the idea of a random/controversial ideas section.

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Stefan van der Walt <stefanv at berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
>> Hi Ralf,
>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:57:06 -0700, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>> > - "internal refactorings": MaskedArray yes, but the other ones no.
>> > numpy.distutils and f2py are very hard to test, a big refactor pretty
>> > much
>> > guarantees breakage. there's also not much need for refactoring, because
>> > those things are not coupled to the numpy.core internals.
>> > numpy.financial
>> > is simply uninteresting - we wish it wasn't there but it is, so now it
>> > simply stays where it is.
>> I want to clarify that in the current notes we put down ideas that
>> prompted active discussion, even if they weren't necessarily feasible.
>> I feel it is important to keep the conversation open to run its course
>> until we have a good understanding of the various issues at hand.
>> You may find that, in person, people are more willing to admit to their
>> support for some "heretical" ideas than they are here on the list.
> Thanks Stefan, good points. I totally agree that anything can be discussed.
>> E.g., you say that the financial functions "now simply stay", but that
>> promises a future of a NumPy that never shrinks, while there is
>> certainly some support for allowing NumPy to contract so that we can
>> release maintenance burden and allow development of other core areas
>> that have been neglected for a long time.
>> You will *always* have small, vocal proponents of any specific piece of
>> functionality; that doesn't necessarily mean that such functionality
>> contributes to the health of a project as a whole.
>> So, I gently urge us carefully reconsider the narrative that nothing can
>> change/be removed, and evaluate each suggestion carefully, not weighing
>> only the very evident negatives but also the longer term positives.
> I don't think there's such a narrative - e.g. the removal of np.matrix that
> we've planned and getting rid of MaskedArray at some point once we have a
> better new masked array implementation are *major* removals. We do plan
> those things because they have major benefits. Imho "major benefits" is a
> bar that needs to be passed before listing features as up for removal on a
> roadmap (even a draft one).
> It would be helpful maybe to find a form for the roadmap where the
> essentials of such discussions (key pros/cons) can be captured. Or at least
> split it in good/desirable/planned items and "wild ideas".
> Re `financial`, there isn't much of a pro as far as I can tell - there's
> almost zero maintenance cost now, and it doesn't hinder any of the proposed
> new features. Plus it's a discussion we've had a couple of times before.
> I know that the current roadmap doc is only draft, but it still says "NumPy
> Roadmap" and it's the best thing we have now, so I'd prefer to not have
> things there (or have them in a separate random/controversial ideas section)
> that are unlikely to happen or for which it's unclear if they're good ideas.
> Cheers,
> Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list