I was implicitly referring to Python/C model for this. I'm aware that Python can be very slow on heavy computations (it's a _documented_ shortcoming), sometimes much slower than Simulink.
I believe that no current technology can meet the needs of both rapid prototyping (for projects in their infancy) and performance (for projects in their industrial cycle). That's why, as it is _documented_ and _recommended_ on the Python website, I intend to first prototype with Python then slowly migrate some critical parts to C/C++ as we refine and stabilize the specs. Ideally, at the end of the project, we'll have the best of both worlds. Note that it's the first time that I try this, I may be a perfectly wrong approach for continuous system simulation... *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 10 Oct 2005 17:48:39 -0700, "hrh1818" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > In your simulator how much do you want Python to do? I ask this > because your subject title implies you want to write your simulation > code in Python but a simulator written entirely in Python would be > very slow. Python is an interpreted language and pure Python code is > not suitable for simulating big continuous systems. Hence to me it > appears you have two distinct proplems. One is developing a front end, > a user interface, that is easy to use. The other is either finding or > writing a good code compiler that wlll produce fast simulation code or > writing an interface to existing optimize simulation code. Although > most likely not suitable for your applicaion but a good example of > this type of program is Mathematica. It is written in two parts a user > interface and a kernel that does all of the high power math. > > Howard > > > Nicolas Pernetty wrote: > > > I am aware of some shortcomings and design flaws of Simulink, > > > especially in the code generation area. I am interested by > > > your paper nonetheless, please send me copy. > > > > Ok no problem. Let me just a few days to strip any irrelevant data > > on it... > > > > > However, Simulink is used by many people on a day-to-day basis > > > in the context of big, industrial projects. The claim that it > > > is "next to unusable" is, in my book, an overstatement ... > > > > Well the exact sentence is "next to unusable for our kind of > > projects". You'll see the details on the paper, but I'm not joking. > > For instance, under Simulink, our model is so big (well not so, but > > too big for Simulink obviously), that you may have a loss of up to > > 40x in performance compared to the model in C (how to optimize the > > Simulink model is a whole other subject in itself). So to make it > > usable, we have to use automatic code generation wich bring a whole > > new set of problems... BUT our work is *very* specific, and I'm not > > talking about Simulink in general. It may be perfect suited for > > others, it's just that for us it's far from perfect... > > > > > Scicos is not perfect either but you can hardly say that is > > > is a simple clone of Simulink. No time and space to go into > > > the details ... > > > > I wasn't in charge of evaluating Scilab/Scicos, so I can only talk > > about the conclusion : main motives to switch to Scilab/Scicos would > > be because it's free, that's all. Report said that next to almost > > everything Scilab/Scicos does, Matlab/Simulink can do, and more > > often than not, do it much better. > > So if you have a different report, I would be happy to read and > > transmit it... > > > > > Obviously, the python community is very dynamic, but how much > > > support will you get in the very specific topic of continuous > > > time systems simulation ? > > > > Well some people already offered me their help. But I believe > > that someone _has_ to begin alone some day... > > Otherwise people who work on continuous system simulation would > > never be interested in Python. > > > > That's the beauty of open source : do what you can, but do it ! and > > hope that someone else will come one day and use your work to build > > upon it. Step by step you will have something usable (in theory). > > > > > IMHO, an hybrid approach, such as the development of bridge > > > to include Python components into Simulink/Scicos/Ptolemy/ > > > Modelica/pick_your_favorite_simulator may grant you more > > > interest from the simulation community. > > > > I already know some bridges like pymat or mlabwrap and I agree that > > a way to include Python to Matlab/Simulink would be a great step. > > But : > > > > 1) I think that it's Mathworks job to do it, and if they don't want > > to do it, we'll never have a very good integration. > > > > 2) For our kind of projects and our kind of developers (mainly > > non-IT engineers), I'm very reluctant to introduce too many > > different technologies in a project. If we decided to go for Python, > > fine, let's do the entire thing in Python/C. If we decided to go for > > Simulink, fine, let's do the whole thing in Simulink/Matlab/C. > > Matlab, for algorithms, can do almost the same things than Python > > and sometimes much better, so if you have already Simulink (and so > > have the license) why go for Python and struggle to have a good > > integration ? > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > SB > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicolas Pernetty wrote: > > > > Simulink is well fitted for small simulators, but when you run > > > > into big projects, I find many shortcomings appears which made > > > > the whole thing next to unusable for our kind of projects. > > > > That's why I'm interested in Python by the way, it is not a > > > > simple clone like Scilab/Scicos. It is a real language which > > > > bring its own advantages, and its own shortcomings, which I find > > > > well suited for our activity. > > > > > > > > If you want, I can send you a paper I wrote last year, detailing > > > > all Simulink shortcomings. I doubt that this mailing list is > > > > interested in such things...(and it's in French...). > > > > Concerning Scilab/Scicos, I'm not really interested in a > > > > technology primarily developed (INRIA and ENSPC) and used by > > > > France. Python and all its libraries and communities are so much > > > > more dynamic ! And also I've heard that Scilab was developed in > > > > Fortran in a way which make it rigid and that the sources are > > > > poorly documented, not a good sign for an open source software > > > > (and Scilab isn't 'Free' for the FSF). > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > > > > > > > On 8 Oct 2005 11:06:25 -0700, "Sébastien Boisgérault" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simulink is a framework widely used by the control engineers > > > > > ... It is not *perfect* but the ODEs piece is probably the > > > > > best part of the simulator. Why were you not convinced ? > > > > > > > > > > You may also have a look at Scicos and Ptolemy II. These > > > > > simulators are open-source ... but not based on Python. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > SB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicolas Pernetty a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Phil, > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I have considered Octave. In fact I'm already using > > > > > > Matlab and decided to 'reject' it for Python + > > > > > > Numeric/numarray + SciPy because I think you could do more > > > > > > in Python and in more simple ways. > > > > > > > > > > > > Problem is that neither Octave, Matlab and Python offer > > > > > > today a framework to build continuous system simulator (in > > > > > > fact Matlab with Simulink and SimMechanics, do propose, but > > > > > > I was not convinced at all). > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > wrote : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicholas, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you looked at Octave? It is not Python, but I believe > > > > > > > it can talk to Python. > > > > > > > Octave is comparable to Matlab for many things, including > > > > > > > having ODE solvers. I have successfully used it to model > > > > > > > and simulate simple systems. Complex system would be easy > > > > > > > to model as well, provided that you model your dynamic > > > > > > > elements with (systems of) differential equations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
