On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Todd <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5 Jun 2014 14:28, "David Cournapeau" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Todd <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 5 Jun 2014 02:57, "Nathaniel Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Travis Oliphant <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > And numpy will be much harder to replace than numeric -- > >> > numeric wasn't the most-imported package in the pythonverse ;-). > >> > >> If numpy is really such a core part of python ecosystem, does it > really make sense to keep it as a stand-alone package? Rather than > thinking about a numpy 2, might it be better to be focusing on getting > ndarray and dtype to a level of quality where acceptance upstream might be > plausible? > > > > > > There has been discussions about integrating numpy a long time ago > (can't find a reference right now), and the consensus was that this was > possible in its current shape nor advisable. The situation has not changed. > > > > Putting something in the stdlib means it basically cannot change > anymore: API compatibility requirements would be stronger than what we > provide even now. NumPy is also a large codebase which would need some > major clean up to be accepted, etc... > > > > David > > I am not suggesting merging all of numpy, only ndarray and dtype (which I > know is a huge job itself). And perhaps not even all of what us currently > included in those, some methods could be split out to their own functions. > > And any numpy 2.0 would also imply a major code cleanup. So although > ndarray and dtype are certainly not ready for such a thing right now, if > you are talking about numpy 2.0 already, perhaps part of that discussion > could involve a plan to get the code into a state where such a move might > be plausible. Even if the merge doesn't actually happen, having the code > at that quality level would still be a good thing. > > I agree that the relationship between numpy and python has not changed > very much in the last few years, but I think the scientific computing > landscape is changing. The latter issue is where my primary concern lies. > I don't think it would have any effect on scientific computing users. It might be useful for other users that occasionally want to do a bit of array processing.
Scientific users need the extended SciPy stack and not a part of numpy that can be imported from the standard library. For example in "Data Science", where I pay more attention and where Python is getting pretty popular, the usual recommended list requires numpy scipy and 5 to 10 more python libraries. Should pandas also go into the python standard library? Python 3.4 got a statistics library, but I don't think it has any effect on the potential statsmodels user base. Josef > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
