I have been using PDL for more than a decade (or is it two?).  Generally,
mere users don't pipe up on pdl-devel...

I make extensive use of the PDL affine transformations and PDL threading.
I'd like to work with PP, but it has been too intimidating so far, so if
PDLA provides a gentler entry, that would be welcome.

So, yes, there are users out there.

PDLA sounds intriguing. There is an awful lot of the current PDL I depend
on, so there will be a threshold for my transitioning to a PDLA system.
That said, I could try smaller projects as a test bed for eventual
transitioning.

Terry


On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:16 PM Karl Glazebrook via pdl-devel <
pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Thanks Ed for restarting this conversation. Your fix-lite patch seems good
> to me.
>
> > Do people still use PDL?
>
> - Yes I do, I have a number of scripts and stuff for my research. These
> days I do also use python (about half my coding probably) as my
> collaborators and students all mostly use it (it has captured the astronomy
> mindshare).
>
> > Is PDLA a good idea
>
> - Yes, heaviness is a major barrier to adoption. Getting a full PDL
> installed can be really difficult (esp. on Mac unless you use my kitchen
> sink which brings its own problems) because there are so many packages with
> complex non-perl dependencies and so many ways to go wrong. Breaking it up
> in to a set of light weight packages that can be installed by convenient
> package managers that people use would give it a future.
>
> I think we should seriously discuss the proposition:  that the current PDL
> should be put in to maintenance mode, (critical bug fixes) and that
> development should be moved in to something like PDLA.
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> On 13 Apr 2019, at 3:40 am, Ed . <ej...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Luis,
>
>
> I’m really glad this subject came up. A lot of this discussion is the
> first time I’ve articulated some of these things (as opposed to just being
> ideas), and it’s increasingly clear that it will be highly useful to
> include an “explanation” as well as the tips in the PDLA top-level docs.
>
>
> Yes, your scripts would need to say “PDLA” everywhere, not PDL. This is to
> avoid clashes. As far as I know, I’ve also changed all the installed
> scripts to have different filenames. If I haven’t, that’s a bug, please
> open an issue!
>
>
> The plans to update PDLA to 2.019 are in place, as mentioned earlier, and
> not a great deal of labour. It would be really useful to get a quick bit of
> “on the ground”, real scientist input on using PDLA in a small thing, just
> to confirm it actually works. Please let me (and us) know the results of
> your experiments! As you say, using a local lib, within a perlbrew, really
> does act as two levels of isolation to avoid risk.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Ed
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Luis Mochan <moc...@icf.unam.mx>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2019 6:25:36 PM
> *To:* Ed .
> *Subject:* Re: [Pdl-devel] Whither PDL?
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 02:45:34PM +0000, Ed . wrote:
> > Hi Luis,
> >
> > Good to hear there's at least one list participant, and at least one user
>
> > :-)
>
>
> Hope more appear...
>
> >
> > PDLA - the "A" stands for "Agile". The concept was to unwedge the
> > development of PDL, by moving it to a place where the core was separated
>
> > from the many, many awesome extras that have become part of the distro.
> The
> > problem with the large distro was that any part of it not working was a
> > blocker to further release. PDLA is a fork of PDL (approximately) 2.013
> > currently, with PDLA::Core as a separate distro, on which PDLA depends.
> Then
> > further parts of PDLA can be split into separate CPAN distros, all
> depending
> > on PDLA::Core (and anything else they need to).
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> >
> > The updating process won't be hard, since I mostly automated the bringing
>
> > across of each patch from PDL. I'll do one release for each PDL
> main-release
> > (which is only 6), then make further "sub" releases with further splits.
> The
> > benefit is a quicker release process, quicker installation, and less risk
>
> > for each release. I don't mean to put words in CHM's mouth, but the last
>
> > thing I recall him saying on this list, on this subject, was a hope that
> I
> > would continue this process. I hope I got that right (and he can speak
> up!),
> > and I hope that's still true.
> >
> > If you don't mind using the equivalent of 2.013, rather than 2.019, you
> can
> > install full PDLA with just "cpanm PDLA", or just the core with "cpanm
> > PDLA::Core". Then change any of your code to use "PDLA" instead of "PDL",
>
> > and it should "just work".
>
> I guess I should change all PDL's to PDLA's. Are there equivalents to
> all PDL's modules?  There have been some problems with previous PDL's
> that have been solved in 2.019, so I'm not sure I can use 2.013. Are
> there plans to update PDLA upto 2.019 (and beyond).
>
> > My version-numbering scheme deliberately adds a further 3 digits to the 3
>
> > used by PDL, allowing me to iterate very rapidly, while still being
> visible
> > what we're tracking. The intent further will be to increase, not
> decrease,
> > the reproducibility of PDL* scientific results, because it will be
> > super-easy (and I will document all these points) to get people to use
> known
> > versions of things. Your scientific paper could have a little "PDLA
> > installation" paragraph which might say:
> >
> > perlbrew install perl-5.26.1
> > perlbrew use perl-5.26.1
> > perlbrew lib create experiment-6 # you can make other local-libs, with
> > different versions of eg PDL
> > perlbrew use perl-5.26.1@experiment-6
> > cpanm PDLA::Core@2.013000 PDLA::Some::Other@1.002 # very specific
> version of
> > PDLA, to *guarantee* reproducibility
> > wget
> >
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/myusername/experiment-6/master/processing.pl
>
> > # made-up but correct URL format
> > wget
> > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/myusername/experiment-6/master/dataset
>  #
> > made-up but correct URL format
> > ./processing.pl dataset
> > # etc
>
> Thanks for these useful/detailed suffestion.
>
> >
> > You will see that almost all of this is also applicable to PDL. People
> have
> > made these fantastic tools, which genuinely solve the previously terrible
>
> > problems of reproducibility. There is of course the remaining problem of
> PDL
> > config such as BADVALUE.
> >
> > On that point, someone (probably me) needs to change PDLA to have things
>
> > like BADVALUE etc from an install-time choice, to a runtime choice. That
> way
> > the same "processing.pl", which specified BADVALUE itself, would run the
>
> > same on the same data and same version of PDLA. That would be a change
> from
> > PDL, though the defaults would be the same as out-of-the-box PDL, so a
> > better description might be just "added feature".
> >
> > This really won't take much work to do, and I would love to see this bit
> of
> > unfinished business get tidied up. I just want to be sure people will
> > actually use it :-)
>
> I guess there could be a problem installing both PDL and PDLA
> simultaneously. According to what I just read, the scripts installed
> by PDLA have the same names as those of PDL (for example, pdl2). So
> care should be taken to use one or the other instead of replacing one
> with the other, maybe using the perlbrew lib trick you mentioned
> above.
>
> Anyway, I'll start experimenting with it.
>
> Best regards,
> Luis
>
> --
>
>                                                                   o
> W. Luis Mochán,                      | tel:(52)(777)329-1734     /<(*)
> Instituto de Ciencias Físicas, UNAM  | fax:(52)(777)317-5388     `>/   /\
> Apdo. Postal 48-3, 62251             |                           (*)/\/  \
> Cuernavaca, Morelos, México          | moc...@fis.unam.mx   /\_/\__/
> GPG: 791EB9EB, C949 3F81 6D9B 1191 9A16  C2DF 5F0A C52B 791E B9EB
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pdl-devel mailing list
> pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pdl-devel mailing list
> pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-devel
>
_______________________________________________
pdl-devel mailing list
pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-devel

Reply via email to