On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Ian Ozsvald <i...@ianozsvald.com> wrote: > 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.
Thanks Ian for the donation! It makes perfect sense. > > 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
