William Stein wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:15 PM, William Stein<wst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Fernando Perez<fperez....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Fernando Perez<fperez....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> The time for the Scipy'09 conference is rapidly approaching, and we >>>> would like to both announce the plan for tutorials and solicit >>>> feedback from everyone on topics of interest. >>> rather than rehash much here, where it's not easy to paste a table, >>> I've posted a note with the poll results here: >>> >>> http://fdoperez.blogspot.com/2009/06/scipy-advanced-tutorials-results.html >>> >>> The short and plain-text-friendly version is the final topic ranking: >>> >>> 1 Advanced topics in matplotlib use >>> 2 Advanced numpy >>> 3 Designing scientific interfaces with Traits >>> 4 Mayavi/TVTK >>> 5 Cython >>> 6 Symbolic computing with sympy >>> 7 Statistics with Scipy >>> 8 Using GPUs with PyCUDA >>> 9 Testing strategies for scientific codes >>> 10 Parallel computing in Python and mpi4py >>> 11 Sparse Linear Algebra with Scipy >>> 12 Structured and record arrays in numpy >>> 13 Design patterns for efficient iterator-based scientific codes >>> 14 Sage >>> 15 The TimeSeries scikit >>> 16 Hermes: high order Finite Element Methods >>> 17 Graph theory with NetworkX >>> >> Wow, Sage sure is low on the list of interest for people. It is >> useful to know how little interest there is in sage among the scipy >> crowd :-). > > I have to add that not only is Sage very low on the above list, Sage > got the *most* "no" votes from the 30 people who actually voted (tying > only with Networkx), according to the table here: > > http://fdoperez.blogspot.com/2009/06/scipy-advanced-tutorials-results.html > > I don't know if I should interpret this as: > > (1) Sage doesn't at all provide what is needed by "the scipy community", or > > (2) The scipy community has a strong opinion that in fact sage is > worse than useless.
I'm disappointed with the lack of interest in Sage as well. It matches my experience though. I believe I'm one of the more Sage-enthusiastic NumPy mailing list participants (because of Cython + Sage days last year); however, much as I'd like to, I find I have to give up Sage for my day-to-day work after 10 minutes each time I try, and always end up back in IPython. I do have lots of ideas for improving the state in various areas, and it shouldn't take all that much work either -- but have been very reluctant to talk about it because I should have time to actually do something about it -- ideas are cheap, show me your code, and all that (and Cython's really been taking the time I have to offer). The fact that the Cython/NumPy support doesn't even work in the notebook (*that* I might just have to do something about myself soon though), or that symbolic expressions can't be evaluated on numeric arrays, using e.g. numexpr (unless added recently?) says a lot about the situation. If you're coming to SciPy 09 (I see you're in the committee) then a Sage+numerics BOF would be very interesting. > It might also be relevant that Sage, Hermes, and Networkx (in the > bottom 4) are all GPL'd, but the top 7 packages by interest in the > list above are all non-GPL (BSD or MIT licensed). It may just be > that whoever voted are mostly people who believe they can't use GPL'd > code. > > Anyway, I find Fernando's justification for the ranking "the ranking > roughly follows the generality of the tools" to be an unsatisfactory > explanation or summary of the data. Rather, perhaps the ranking > roughly follows the restrictiveness of the *license*. -- Dag Sverre --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
