[pypy-dev] Questions on the pypy+numpy project

[Ian Ozsvald]

I agree that numpy support is a good first aim, I hope it'll open the
door to scipy support later.

To that end I've made my donation. As discussed with Fijal via a
private email I felt awkward with the new project (hence me asking the
question 60 emails back) as I'd offered a £600 donation which was made
on the assumption that numpy+scipy support would be possible (and to
be clear - this was entirely *my* assumption, made at EuroPython,
before the project was defined - the  error was mine). Obviously I
want to see numpy supported, I do also want to see scipy (and probably
cython) supported too.

So, I've just donated $480USD (£300) for the numpy-pypy project as a
personal donation. I'll make a second donation of $480 as and when a
project is proposed that enables scipy support. This fits with my
goals and I hope it helps the project move forwards.

Cheers all,
Ian.

On 20 October 2011 11:41, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Ian Ozsvald <ian at ianozsvald.com> wrote:
>>> I was one of the people who responded to that poll, and I have to say that I fall into the category "they actually meant 'SciPy'…".
>>
>> I'll note with regards to the survey that I also recall saying Yes to
>> numpy but never thinking to explain that I used SciPy, the SciKits and
>> Cython for a lot of my work (not all of it but definitely for chunks
>> of it). Maybe a second more focused survey would be useful?
>
> I think Armin made it clear enough but apparently not. We're not
> against scipy and we will try our best at supporting it. However it's
> not in the first part of the proposal - let's be reasonable, pypy is
> not magic, we can't make everything happen at the same time.
>
> We believe that emulating CPython C API is a lot of pain and numpy
> does not adhere to it anyway. We also see how cython is not the
> central part of numpy right now and it's unclear whether cython
> bindings would every be done as the basis of numpy array. How would
> you do that anyway?
>
> So providing a basic, working and preferably fast array type is an
> absolute necessity to go forward. We don't want to plan upfront what
> then. We also think providing the array type *has* to break backwards
> compatibility or it'll be a major pain to implement, simply because
> CPython is too different. And, as a value added, fast operations on
> low-level data *in python* while not a priority for a lot of scipy
> people is a priority for a lot of pypy people - it's just very useful.
>
> If you have a plan how to go forward *and* immediately get scipy,
> please speak up, I don't.
>
> Cheers,
> fijal
>
>>
>> Ian.
>>
>> --
>> Ian Ozsvald (A.I. researcher)
>> ian at IanOzsvald.com
>>
>> http://IanOzsvald.com
>> http://MorConsulting.com/
>> http://StrongSteam.com/
>> http://SocialTiesApp.com/
>> http://TheScreencastingHandbook.com
>> http://FivePoundApp.com/
>> http://twitter.com/IanOzsvald
>> _______________________________________________
>> pypy-dev mailing list
>> pypy-dev at python.org
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
>>
>



-- 
Ian Ozsvald (A.I. researcher)
ian at IanOzsvald.com

http://IanOzsvald.com
http://MorConsulting.com/
http://StrongSteam.com/
http://SocialTiesApp.com/
http://TheScreencastingHandbook.com
http://FivePoundApp.com/
http://twitter.com/IanOzsvald