I agree that numpy support is a good first aim, I hope it'll open the door to scipy support later.
To that end I've made my donation. As discussed with Fijal via a private email I felt awkward with the new project (hence me asking the question 60 emails back) as I'd offered a £600 donation which was made on the assumption that numpy+scipy support would be possible (and to be clear - this was entirely *my* assumption, made at EuroPython, before the project was defined - the error was mine). Obviously I want to see numpy supported, I do also want to see scipy (and probably cython) supported too. So, I've just donated $480USD (£300) for the numpy-pypy project as a personal donation. I'll make a second donation of $480 as and when a project is proposed that enables scipy support. This fits with my goals and I hope it helps the project move forwards. Cheers all, Ian. On 20 October 2011 11:41, Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Ian Ozsvald <i...@ianozsvald.com> wrote: >>> I was one of the people who responded to that poll, and I have to say that >>> I fall into the category "they actually meant 'SciPy'…". >> >> I'll note with regards to the survey that I also recall saying Yes to >> numpy but never thinking to explain that I used SciPy, the SciKits and >> Cython for a lot of my work (not all of it but definitely for chunks >> of it). Maybe a second more focused survey would be useful? > > I think Armin made it clear enough but apparently not. We're not > against scipy and we will try our best at supporting it. However it's > not in the first part of the proposal - let's be reasonable, pypy is > not magic, we can't make everything happen at the same time. > > We believe that emulating CPython C API is a lot of pain and numpy > does not adhere to it anyway. We also see how cython is not the > central part of numpy right now and it's unclear whether cython > bindings would every be done as the basis of numpy array. How would > you do that anyway? > > So providing a basic, working and preferably fast array type is an > absolute necessity to go forward. We don't want to plan upfront what > then. We also think providing the array type *has* to break backwards > compatibility or it'll be a major pain to implement, simply because > CPython is too different. And, as a value added, fast operations on > low-level data *in python* while not a priority for a lot of scipy > people is a priority for a lot of pypy people - it's just very useful. > > If you have a plan how to go forward *and* immediately get scipy, > please speak up, I don't. > > Cheers, > fijal > >> >> Ian. >> >> -- >> Ian Ozsvald (A.I. researcher) >> i...@ianozsvald.com >> >> http://IanOzsvald.com >> http://MorConsulting.com/ >> http://StrongSteam.com/ >> http://SocialTiesApp.com/ >> http://TheScreencastingHandbook.com >> http://FivePoundApp.com/ >> http://twitter.com/IanOzsvald >> _______________________________________________ >> pypy-dev mailing list >> pypy-dev@python.org >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev >> > -- Ian Ozsvald (A.I. researcher) i...@ianozsvald.com http://IanOzsvald.com http://MorConsulting.com/ http://StrongSteam.com/ http://SocialTiesApp.com/ http://TheScreencastingHandbook.com http://FivePoundApp.com/ http://twitter.com/IanOzsvald _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
