I like the idea of a random/controversial ideas section.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Stefan van der Walt <stef...@berkeley.edu> > wrote: >> >> Hi Ralf, >> >> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:57:06 -0700, Ralf Gommers wrote: >> > - "internal refactorings": MaskedArray yes, but the other ones no. >> > numpy.distutils and f2py are very hard to test, a big refactor pretty >> > much >> > guarantees breakage. there's also not much need for refactoring, because >> > those things are not coupled to the numpy.core internals. >> > numpy.financial >> > is simply uninteresting - we wish it wasn't there but it is, so now it >> > simply stays where it is. >> >> I want to clarify that in the current notes we put down ideas that >> prompted active discussion, even if they weren't necessarily feasible. >> I feel it is important to keep the conversation open to run its course >> until we have a good understanding of the various issues at hand. >> >> You may find that, in person, people are more willing to admit to their >> support for some "heretical" ideas than they are here on the list. > > > Thanks Stefan, good points. I totally agree that anything can be discussed. > >> >> >> E.g., you say that the financial functions "now simply stay", but that >> promises a future of a NumPy that never shrinks, while there is >> certainly some support for allowing NumPy to contract so that we can >> release maintenance burden and allow development of other core areas >> that have been neglected for a long time. >> >> You will *always* have small, vocal proponents of any specific piece of >> functionality; that doesn't necessarily mean that such functionality >> contributes to the health of a project as a whole. >> >> So, I gently urge us carefully reconsider the narrative that nothing can >> change/be removed, and evaluate each suggestion carefully, not weighing >> only the very evident negatives but also the longer term positives. > > > I don't think there's such a narrative - e.g. the removal of np.matrix that > we've planned and getting rid of MaskedArray at some point once we have a > better new masked array implementation are *major* removals. We do plan > those things because they have major benefits. Imho "major benefits" is a > bar that needs to be passed before listing features as up for removal on a > roadmap (even a draft one). > > It would be helpful maybe to find a form for the roadmap where the > essentials of such discussions (key pros/cons) can be captured. Or at least > split it in good/desirable/planned items and "wild ideas". > > Re `financial`, there isn't much of a pro as far as I can tell - there's > almost zero maintenance cost now, and it doesn't hinder any of the proposed > new features. Plus it's a discussion we've had a couple of times before. > > I know that the current roadmap doc is only draft, but it still says "NumPy > Roadmap" and it's the best thing we have now, so I'd prefer to not have > things there (or have them in a separate random/controversial ideas section) > that are unlikely to happen or for which it's unclear if they're good ideas. > > Cheers, > Ralf > > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
