On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:15 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:25 AM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Yes, I did. This is the code developed by people at Simula. It works > > > > nice, but it's quite difficult to install. I generally prefer > smaller > > > > tools, if I can get the job done. > > > > > > > > Ondrej > > > > > > Other than size and build issues, are the two projects equivalent > > > feature / speed-wise? > > > > To my purposes, sfepy is better than fenics, because sfepy is in > > python (and can do all I need). As to speed, that's about the same, > > because the mainloop of sfepy for the assembly is in pure C, without > > any python callbacks. Also because it's smaller, I find it simpler to > > use. But Fenics definitely is also good and have it's users. > > > Feature-wise, is Fenics better than sfepy?
I tried Fenics about a year ago, so they may have improved. For my own purposes, i.e. solving a PDE, with Neumann or Dirichlet boundary conditions, assigning different material properties to different regions in the body, etc., sfepy is better in a sense, that I was able to do what I want in it (with the help of Robert) easier than in Fenics. > You did seem to indicate sfepy > is smaller. Is it because Fenics does more? Because they are doing almost everything in C++, while sfepy uses a very clever approach of only doing the main assembly loop in pure C, otherwise doing everything in Python (so it's the same fast as the libmesh (also C++ library) for my own purposes). Also, at the time I tried Fenics, I had to code in C++ to do what I want. I don't like that, I prefer to work in Python (in sfepy, you don't have to touch the C code, unless you want to do something very unusual). But they may have improved since then. > Also, isn't Fenics also in > C+Python? It's Python + C++. I don't like C++, I really prefer Python + C, it's easier to understand, cleaner, more portable, easier to wrap in Python, etc. Well, download the sources of Dolfin and sfepy and see for yourself. It takes less than 30s to compile sfepy on my computer. I haven't tried dolphin, because it requires some dependencies I don't have, but I am sure it will take at least 20x more time. Sfepy only requires numpy+scipy. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
