FYI: Of the 2016510 users that report their package usage from Ubuntu,
7332 use PDL. This is higher than other numbers I have seen in this
mailing list.
http://popcon.ubuntu.com/
#The fields below are the sum for all the packages maintained by that
#developer:
#
#<inst> is the number of people who installed this package;
#<vote> is the number of people who use this package regularly;
#<old> is the number of people who installed, but don't use this package
# regularly;
#<recent> is the number of people who upgraded this package recently;
#<no-files> is the number of people whose entry didn't contain enough
# information (atime and ctime were 0).
#rank name inst vote old recent no-files
Package: pdl 73 7332 21 1
Package: base-files 182932 2016510 6389 318
Jan Hoogenraad wrote:
As a simple user (not PDL developer), running about 4 processors
full-time with PDL code (yes: I USE PDL), I have not used CPAN at all,
not will do so in the near future.
I have tried PDL from CPAN, but after it started downloading hundreds of
packages (including half of perl, which it deemed outdated), it still
did not run with my pre-compiled perl. So I gave up on that.
I never use PDL plotting.
For stability & configuration management, I use Ubuntu (=debian)
packages. (current version: PDL v2.4.5 (supports bad values))
I love modularized perl, and only use pre-compiled packages.
Using modularized PDL, I can use debian dependency management so select
either versions with plotting (which then should automatically load PDL
core), or the number-crunching I need.
Joel Berger wrote:
I would highly support a modularized PDL, with a lean core and a
Task::PDL which pull everything we are used to from `cpanm PDL`. If
even for the testing purposes.
Joel
_______________________________________________
Perldl mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
_______________________________________________
Perldl mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
