On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 4:26:44 PM UTC+2, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > On 29 August 2016 at 16:07, Chris Rackauckas <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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. >
I think Tom may have a more primitive API underneath. If that's the case, someone may write a PyPlot-style API for Plots.jl.
