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

Reply via email to