My impression is that Python has become something of a standard in the
research community, with tools like SciPy, NumPy, and SAGE widely used,
though Perl has a library comparable to NumPy in PDL, and there is a
SciRuby, There is nothing else like SAGE except for the commercial packages
v>
> Subject: Re: [Radiance-dev] Python scripts for Radiance
> Date: March 24, 2016 9:44:43 AM PDT
>
> There absolutely was an issue here, on Windows, when attempting to apply the
> workflow documented in the 3-phase tutorial Andy wrote, updated with
> rfluxmtx. For the life of me I
Greg:
>
> Well, we may need to devise some tests to be sure this is still a
> problem, but in the past, Windows would deliver binary files in
> 128-byte chunks, meaning that the last chunk might have garbage at the
> end of it that was not actually produced by the program that sent it.
>
Am 2016-03-22 01:34, schrieb Gregory J. Ward:
Well, it's still not obvious to me, even after Randoph's explanation
(which used different calls). In any case, I was only trying to make
the point that Python isn't transparent, either.
An unknown language is never immediately transparent
I don’t think it’s as awful as that; Python is a widely-known, widely-used, and
well-documented language and freely available. I worry more about Perl,
because it is so easy to create write-only code in Perl and this becomes a
maintenance problem.
On the other hand some Unix commands are
Real quick:
> From: "Guglielmetti, Robert"
> Date: March 22, 2016 9:37:46 AM PDT
>
> Eh, I respectfully disagree, here. Languages like Python and Ruby are
> making it easy for meatheads like me to write functional cross-platform
> programs that can leverage
This is getting good...
On 3/22/16, 10:02 AM, "Gregory J. Ward" wrote:
>
>Thinking on it some more, the main issue I have with Python is probably
>the object-oriented structure, which moves it even further from a
>command-line interpreter. For me, the main benefit of
Removing some stuff to keep things from getting too drawn-out...
> From: Georg Mischler <schor...@schorsch.com>
> Subject: Re: [Radiance-dev] Python scripts for Radiance
> Date: March 22, 2016 4:49:39 AM PDT
>
> Am 2016-03-22 01:34, schrieb Gregory J. Ward:
> ...
>
f*)
command options on the two platforms, or suffer significant
performance penalties on Unix.
Sorry, not sure what you're talking about there.
Cheers
-schorsch
From: Georg Mischler <schor...@schorsch.com>
Subject: Re: [Radiance-dev] Python scripts for Radiance
Date: March 21, 2016 5:21:45 P
The problem that code solves is finding the name of the invoked command and
getting rid of the Windows .exe extension. I'd write it a bit differently:
from os.path import basename, splitext
...
progname = splitext(basename(sys.argv[0]))[0]
(or, at length)
progfile =
All I can say is:
SHORTPROGN = os.path.splitext(os.path.split(sys.argv[0])[1])[0]
> From: Georg Mischler <schor...@schorsch.com>
> Subject: Re: [Radiance-dev] Python scripts for Radiance
> Date: March 21, 2016 4:22:47 PM PDT
>
> You're arguing with some of th
. I generally wrote something when I needed it
or had an example ready, but I didn't have the foresight to keep those
examples around, so I'm not much help there. Sorry!
-Greg
From: Georg Mischler <schor...@schorsch.com>
Subject: Re: [Radiance-dev] Python scripts for Radiance
Date: March 21,
Dear Georg,
I would vote for the glaze csh script.
Best,
Wouter
On 03/21/2016 05:02 PM, Georg Mischler
wrote:
Hi again!
I have converted some of the original Radiance shell scripts into
Python.
Hi again!
I have converted some of the original Radiance shell scripts into
Python.
https://github.com/gmischler/PyRad
The examples so far are exact drop-in replacements of the original csh
or Perl versions, but with some extra functionality and benefits.
* usage instructions (-H)
*
14 matches
Mail list logo