[pypy-dev] Questions on the pypy+numpy project
fijall at gmail.com
Mon Oct 24 13:39:20 CEST 2011
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Ian Ozsvald <ian at ianozsvald.com> wrote:
> 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,
Thanks Ian for the donation!
It makes perfect sense.
> 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.
>>> Ian Ozsvald (A.I. researcher)
>>> ian at IanOzsvald.com
>>> pypy-dev mailing list
>>> pypy-dev at python.org
> Ian Ozsvald (A.I. researcher)
> ian at IanOzsvald.com
More information about the pypy-dev