>> You would like pypy+numpy+scipy so that you could write fast >> python-only algorithms and still use the existing libraries. I >> suppose this is a perfectly reasonable usecase, and indeed >> the current plan does not focus on this. >
Yes. That is exactly what I want. > However, I'd like to underline that to write "fast python-only algorithms", > you most probably still need a fast numpy in the way it is written right now > (unless you want to write your algorithms without using numpy at all) I make very little use of numpy itself other than as the way to use scipy; I tend to write python-only algorithms that don't use numpy. As Peter Cock says in his own reply, a little bit of slowdown in regular numpy use compared to CPython would be fine, though a LOT of slowdown could be a problem. Now, I'm not saying I'm typical. I have no idea how typical I am, though it sounds like Peter Cock is in a similar boat. I'm sure I'd benefit from doing more with numpy. But I simply cannot do without scipy, or accessing equivalent functionality by using R or another package. I'd much rather use scipy and see its capabilities grow than use R. >From my own bias, I'd assume that what would benefit the scientific community >most is scipy integration first, and a faster numpy second. Scipy simply >provides too many tools that are absolutely essential. The project for providing a common interface to IronPython, etc. sounded extremely promising in that regard -- it makes enormous sense to me that all different versions of python should have a way to access scipy, even if custom code that uses numpy is a little bit slower. My main concern is that the glue to frequently-called scipy functions such as scipy.stats.stats.chisqprob wouldn't be so much slower that my overall script isn't benefiting from PyPy. Obviously, I understand that this is an open-source project and people develop what they are interested in. I'm just giving my individual perspective, for whatever it may be worth. -- Gary Robinson CTO Emergent Discovery, LLC personal email: gary...@me.com work email: grobin...@emergentdiscovery.com Company: http://www.emergentdiscovery.com Blog: http://www.garyrobinson.net On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Antonio Cuni wrote: > On 19/10/11 13:42, Antonio Cuni wrote: > >> I'm not sure to interpret your sentence correctly. >> Are you saying that you would still want a pypy+numpy+scipy, even if it ran >> things slower than CPython? May I ask why? > > ah sorry, I think I misunderstood your email. > > You would like pypy+numpy+scipy so that you could write fast python-only > algorithms and still use the existing libraries. I suppose this is a > perfectly reasonable usecase, and indeed the current plan does not focus on > this. > > However, I'd like to underline that to write "fast python-only algorithms", > you most probably still need a fast numpy in the way it is written right now > (unless you want to write your algorithms without using numpy at all). If we > went to the slow-but-scipy-compatible approach, any pure python algorithm > which interfaces with numpy arrays would be terribly slow. > > ciao, > Anto _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
