I had to use it a bit for a class and it was *PURE PAIN* beyond the simplest of things.
With my full respect, this is your problem. My students, with some
guidance, managed to implement a small automatic differentiation
package in it, and they are still alive and happy. Another team
worked on physical models of musical instruments, and they finished
the project without trying to murder anybody.
Syntax for 3D arrays? Give me one single language where this is natural and immediate.
Numerical Python! Yes, the syntax is Python's, but the syntax doesn't really do much of anything unless you use it with Numeric. Anyway, the syntax is quite uniform and general. You can use it for any number of dimensions (including 0!).
I used NumPy quite recently (with PIL, for image processing; actually
this was a pedagogical attempt to reimplement my old Clean package
Clastic using a vector language, not a functional one. This worked,
moreover NumPy is free.) So I second your good opinion of Numerical Python,
although the story of two not-so compatible implementations, the old
NumPy (or Numeric) and NumArray is a bit annoying.
But why we have used it?
BECAUSE it is similar to Matlab, in fact cloned somehow *after it...*,
the whole idea of Ufuncs is based on Matlab. So, please, let me keep
my previous opinion that it is not easy to find something explicitly
better than Matlab or its clones in the discussed context. It is
obviously my personal impression, I won't convert anybody, but I will
defend my standpoint.
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
