On Wed, 2016-06-08 at 16:36, Gabriel Gellner <gabrielgell...@gmail.com> wrote: > So much great news in this thread! I am crazy happy that ODE.jl is not dead. > As > an interested outsider it seemed like the community got gridlocked on the API > discussion. It is nice that this is not the case.
I think it was more a case of no-one having enough time on their hands. > A quick question as to why the matlab interface is better for small problems, > I > don't really get that. > > suppose we have some kind of OdeProblem type and then you have specific types > for a solver that inherit from this, say a `RK54` (don't worry about the ugly > names) > then wouldn't it be just as easy from an end users perspective if you had > something like: > > sol = dsolve(RK54(func, y0), trange, <solver options>) maybe better: sol = dsolve(func, y0, trange, RK54(<solver options>) ) > as > > sol = ode45(func, y0, trange, <solver options>) Well, either is fine. I think it is important that the high-level interface is free or mostly free from custom types. A casual user shouldn't need to learn about special types and be able to just use arrays and functions. (I find that with Julia's awesome type system it is easy to overdo it on the types.) > but with the above you get the ability to save the OdeProblem separately, have > special versions that do inplace updating etc. I don't really see what having > the callback version, versus the callback in a type version needs to be > drastically different from the user perspective? Furthermore if something like > the above is used then if the user switches between the high level and low > level interface there is far less of a pattern switch in the calling function. > Rather you would just do it on separate lines and save the problem type. I haven't really thought about switching between high and low-level. You're right that ideally it should be easy, but IMO, not at the cost of making the high-level interface complicated. > I have read much of the old discussions on the ODE.jl github issues, but it > largely seemed that this was being looked at from a small vs large problem and > not really from an API usability problem. > > Thanks for any insight. I look forward to seeing what is in the works with the > GSOC project. > > Gabriel
