On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Stefan van der Walt <stef...@berkeley.edu>
wrote:
> On 2015-09-21 22:15:55, Bryan Van de Ven <bry...@continuum.io> wrote:
> > Beyond that, what (even in a broad sense) is an example of a goal that
> > "Continuum might need" that would conceivably do detriment to the
> > NumPy community? That it be faster? Simpler to maintain? Easier to
> > extend? Integrate better with more OS projects? Attract new active
> > developers? Receive more financial support? Grow its user base even
> > more?
>
> I don't know how productive it is to dream up examples, but it's not
> very hard to do. Currently, e.g., the community is not ready to adopt
> numba as part of the ufunc core. But it's been stated by some that,
> with so many people running Conda, breaking the ABI is of little
> consequence. And then it wouldn't be much of a leap to think that numba
> is an acceptable dependency.
>
A couple of things to help clarify:
1) nobody believes that the community should be forced to adopt numba as
part of ufunc core yet --- but this could happen someday just as Cython is
now being adopted but was proposed 8 years ago that it "could be adopted"
That's a red-hearing.
2) I have stated that breaking the ABI is of little consequence because
of conda as well as other tools. I still believe that. This has nothing
to do with any benefit Continuum might or might not receive because of
conda. Everyone else who wants to make a conda-based distribution also
benefits (Cloudera, Microsoft, Intel, ...) or use conda also benefits.
I don't think the community realizes the damange that is done with FUD like
this. There are real implications. It halts progress, creates confusion,
and I think ultimately damages the community.
Numba being an acceptable dependency means a lot more than conda --- it's
dependent on LLVM compiled support which would have to be carefully tested
--- first as only an optional dependency for many years.
>
> There's a broad range of Continuum projects that intersect with what
> NumPy does: numba, DyND, dask and Odo to name a few. Integrating them
> into NumPy may make a lot more sense for someone from Continuum than for
> other members of the community.
>
I don't see how. None of these have been proposed for integrating into
NumPy. I don't see how integrating numba into NumPy benefits Continuum
at all. It's much easier for us to keep it separate. At this point
Continuum doesn't have an opinion about integrating DyND into NumPy or not.
These projects will all succeed or fail on their own based on users needs.
Whether or not they every become a part of NumPy will depend on whether
they are useful as such not because a person at Continuum is part of a
steering committee (with other people on it).
I know that you were responding to specific question by Brian as to how
their could be a conflict of interest for Continuum and NumPy development.
I don't think this is a useful conversation --- we could dream up all
kinds of conflicts of interest for BIDS and NumPy too (e.g. perhaps BIDS
really wants Spark to take over and for NumPy to have special connections
to Spark). Are we to not allow anyone at BIDS to participate in the
steering council because of their other interests?
But remember, the original point is whether or not someone from Continuum
(or I presume any company and not just singling out Continuum for special
treatment) should be on the steering council. Are you really arguing
that they shouldn't because there are other projects Continuum is working
on that have some overlap with NumPy. I really hope you don't actually
believe that.
-Travis
> Stéfan
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
--
*Travis Oliphant*
*Co-founder and CEO*
@teoliphant
512-222-5440
http://www.continuum.io
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
