On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Doug Blank <doug.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2) A pure-Python version would be a lot of work (perhaps building on > PyPy's RPython version and converting their C) and be slow, but would be > little maintenance as most of the details for the current version of numpy > would be static. Requires generic Python skills to develop (a large group > of people have these skills; any generic Python implementation could use). > Anything that we can share with the PyPy/Jython teams will be a huge advantage. Having a pure-Python implementation would at least allow it to work, even if it wouldn't be fast (except on PyPy). It might also be a huge amount of work, but if it's shared between three smallish communities it might not be too bad. I just don't know enough about the architecture of numpy to say for sure - which parts are Python, which are Cython, and which are hand-written CPython modules. If they're going to depend on Cython, it's worth investing in a C# backend for that (unless we can generate cross-platform C++, but .NET Native might make that irrelevant anyway). It would also enable the wonderful Pandas library, hopefully. Getting an idea from the numpy team where they're headed would be a good idea before investing too much work in any case. - Jeff
_______________________________________________ Ironpython-users mailing list Ironpython-users@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/ironpython-users