Hi Perry, On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Perry Greenfield <pe...@stsci.edu> wrote:
> I, like Travis, have my worries about C++. But if those actually doing > the work (and particularly the subsequent support) feel it is the best > language for implementation, I can live with that. > > I particularly like the incremental and conservative approach to > introducing C++ that was proposed by Mark. What I would like to stress > in doing this that all along that process, extensive testing is > performed (preferably with some build-bot process) to ensure that > whatever C++ features are being introduced are fully portable and > don't present intractable distribution issues. Whatever we do, we > don't want to go far down that road only to find out that there is no > good solution in that regard with certain platforms. > > We are particularly sensitive to this issue since we distribute our > software, and anything that makes installation of numpy problematic is > a very serious issue for us. It has to be an easy install on all > common platforms. That is one thing C allowed, despite all its flaws, > which is near universal installation advantages over any other > language available. If the appropriate subset of C++ can achieve that, > great. But it has to be proved continuously as it is incrementally > adopted. (I'm not much persuaded by comments like "my experience has > shown it not to be a problem") > > Is there any disagreement with this? > > It's less clear to me what to do about more unusual platforms. It > seems to me that some sort of testing against those that may prove > important in the future (e.g., gpus?) will be needed, but how to do > this is not clear to me. > > Your group has been one of the best for testing numpy. What systems do you support at this time? Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
