On 29 August 2016 at 16:07, Chris Rackauckas <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's exactly the reason why it's a good idea. The backends aren't > swappable, but the code is. And for the most part that means you can just > avoid the cons of any backend instead of having to fight against them. You > could be making all of your plots with the PGFPlots backend for some > publication, and then realize that you need a trisurf plot. You can just > switch the backend and re-save your plots without actually writing new > code, and now they can be all saved and matching in PyPlot. > Wait... doesn't your example imply that the code is *not* quite swappable? If you start with PyPlot and use a trisurf plot, you cannot switch to PGFPlots. I don't want to be too critical. I think Thomas knows that I'm cheering for him from the benches. I totally agree that changing one line from "pyplot()" to "gr()" is infinitely easier than learning GR.jl if you know PyPlot.jl. The main reason I don't use Plots.jl is entirely a personal preference regarding the API. > This is not to mention that Plots adds features to each backend. > Yeah, but I worry that it will take away features from each backend. > So sure you can't use every feature of every backend, but there are more > features you can easily use through Plots than just using the backend > itself. > Can you give me an example of one of the plotting recipes that Plots adds that you have found useful? I check on Plots from time to time but I'm afraid to make the switch. I know PyPlot already, it does what I need, and plotting is pretty important for my daily work. Cheers, Daniel.
