How hard would it be to have numpy/ scipy part of the python standard library? Tom
mattf wrote: > I've discovered Python and have been trying it out lately as a possible > replacement for computations that would ordinarily be done with a > commercial package like Matlab or IDL. I'd like to mention a few things > I've run across that have either surprised me or kept me from doing > things the way I'd like to. > > 1) -There's a large and active sci/tech Python community out there.- > This was something of a surprise. If you look at the python.org site > and click down a couple of levels past the front page, there's a rather > brief mention of scientific and numeric applications-- but I don't > think this does justice to the current levels of activity and > accomplishment. > > 2) -There's a very impressive set of libraries out there- > NumPy, SciPy, Enthought. It's really kind of stunning how mature these > libraries are and how much I had to poke around to figure that out. > > 3) -There's a problem with development under Windows. > A typical task will entail writing a 'pure python' prototype to get the > 'data in, data out' part of a problem straightened out, then writing a > module in C to get adequate performance in production runs. But the C > compiler that my employer provides (the current version of MSVS) > doesn't produce libraries that work with the current version of Python. > Ooops. This, in the real world, is a big problem. I -love- Python. And > I think I could convince other people to use it. But I've got to have a > way to produce compiled modules painlessly, i.e., without installing a > new operating system. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
