I am also very concerned about this situation, as I think VPython is a wonderful tool (to which I've contributed). Unfortunately, I'm not really in any position to help out, as I am already over-stretched with my current commitments. I also fear that my C++ skills have somewhat atrophied, and the whole "boostification" of that project apparently steepened the learning curve significantly. I spent a little time trying to get the current beta to build and was not able to accomplish that (dependency issues).
There was some talk a while back (related to pata-pata) about doing a "VPython in Python" using the PyOpenGL bindings. If I were seriously considering doing something to "resurrect" VPython, I would definitely consider going that route. It feels to me like the current VPython infrastructure is growing brittle and risks becoming a dead-end. Hopefully I'm wrong and some folks will pick up the development (scipy would be a good crew). I'd hate to have this tool fall into irrelevance. --John On Friday 06 October 2006 8:51 am, Arthur wrote: > Dan Crosta wrote: > >If the author of VPython is not planning to work on it for several > >months > > The situation is that the actual authors of vpython are gone, as in > graduated, moved on with their lives... > > Bruce is more an adminstrator/funder (through a NSF grant) of the project. > > Essentially there is no developer as such involved in the project at > this point. Which is why I am concerned. > > > and you aren't planning to do anything other than make it > >compatible with a soon-to-be released version of one of its > >dependencies (is that the relationship b/w VPython and NumPy?), then > >why not carry on work from 4.0b5? > > Because it is has "serious bugs", and I have no motivation to even try > to address those serious bugs at this time since they are > less serious, to me, than the lack of NumPy compatibility. > > And because it is more realistic that I, working alone, might be able > to get to the Numpy issue - less so thatI can get to the bugs. I assume > forward > porting a Numpy fix would be a small issue - but, as I say, I am not > counting on the 4.xxx branch getting revived and until it does I think it > is more important to keep the 3.xxx branch alive and healthy. > > If nothing develops here I might take the route of trying to implore the > scipy folks into taking some interest in the problem. For them it might > represent only a few hours work to at least get the Numpy compatibility > issue resolved. In fact, moving the project under the scipy umbrella > might be just the thing. > > Except only that as part of scipy it will perceived in its more serious > aspect and the fact that it makes a great little toy for beginners to > play with will > get lost.. This versality is what I think is so significant about the > project, and why I have concerns as to its fate. > > Art > > > > Art > > _______________________________________________ > Edu-sig mailing list > Edu-sig@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig -- John M. Zelle, Ph.D. Wartburg College Professor of Computer Science Waverly, IA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (319) 352-8360 _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
