On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:59 AM, Fernando Perez wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Robert Bradshaw > <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: >> I think the basic idea was that one could write a faster (sparse and >> dense) graph "core," and then run all the NetworkX algorithms on top >> of it as long as it supported the interface (for manipulating and >> querying vertices and edges). If some code was still too slow then it >> would be moved down to C (hopefully it would be sufficient to declare >> the graphs as c-graphs and compile with Cython to remove all the >> Python function call overhead). I don't know how well this works at >> the moment. >> > > Is there any particular reason why this code couldn't be contributed > upstream to Networkx? I use networkx outside of Sage, and it would be > great to have speed improvements made there as well; since Sage > already ships nx it would obviously benefit regardless.
I think, at least for cgraphs, it's an issue of NetworkX wanting to stay pure Python. They have few(er) dependancies, and we're happy to contribute upstream. - Robert -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
