Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python
On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 03:43:13PM -0400, Jacqueline Kazil wrote:
> The PSF has received a few inquiries asking the question — “How do I cite
> Python?”So, I am reaching out to you all to figure this out.
What about the R approach?
---
> citation()
To cite R in publications use:
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
URL https://www.R-project.org/.
A BibTeX entry for LaTeX users is
@Manual{,
title = {R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing},
author = {{R Core Team}},
organization = {R Foundation for Statistical Computing},
address = {Vienna, Austria},
year = {2018},
url = {https://www.R-project.org/},
}
We have invested a lot of time and effort in creating R, please cite it
when using it for data analysis. See also ‘citation("pkgname")’ for
citing R packages.
---
Cheers,
--
José María (Chema) Mateos
https://rinzewind.org/blog-es || https://rinzewind.org/blog-en
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python
> > On Saturday, September 15, 2018, Jacqueline Kazil > wrote: > >> I just got caught up on the thread. This is a really great discussion. >> Thank you for all the contributions. >> >> Before we get into the details, let's go back to the main use case we are >> trying to solve. >> *As a user, I am writing an academic paper and I need to cite Python. * >> > ai'd still like to know *why* you need to cite python 0 I can imagine multiple reasons, and that may influence the best document to cite. > Let's throw reproducibility out the window for now (<--- something I never >> thought I would say), because that should be captured in the code, not in >> the citations. >> > thanks for that clarification. > So, if we don't need the specific version of Python, then maybe creating >> one citation is all we need. >> > well, Python does evolve over time, so depending on why you are citing it, version may matter. But i suggest hat the language reference be used as the "primary" citation for Python, and then you can cite the version that is current at the time of your paper writing (Or the version that's relevant to your paper). And that gives it some good Google juice as well. >> > > https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en=python+van+Rossum * > looks like the language reference shows there -- so good to go. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR(206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python
On Saturday, September 15, 2018, Jacqueline Kazil
wrote:
> I just got caught up on the thread. This is a really great discussion.
> Thank you for all the contributions.
>
> Before we get into the details, let's go back to the main use case we are
> trying to solve.
> *As a user, I am writing an academic paper and I need to cite Python. *
>
> Let's throw reproducibility out the window for now (<--- something I never
> thought I would say), because that should be captured in the code, not in
> the citations.
>
> So, if we don't need the specific version of Python, then maybe creating
> one citation is all we need.
> And that gives it some good Google juice as well.
>
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en=python+van+Rossum *
https://www.semanticscholar.org/search?q=Python%20van%20Rossum
https://www.mendeley.com/research-papers/?query=Python+van+Rossum
https://www.zotero.org/search/q/Python/type/group
With an e.g. {Zotero,} group, it would be easy to cite the Python citation
with the greatest centrality.
https://networkx.github.io/documentation/stable/reference/algorithms/centrality.html
A DOI URN/URI/URL really is easiest to aggregate the edges of/for.
- [ ] Link to the new citation(s) page in the Python docs from the SciPy
citing page
https://www.scipy.org/citing.html
NP. YW!
> Thoughts?
>
> (Once we nail down one or many, I think we can then move into the details
> of the content of the citation.)
>
> -Jackie
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:47 AM Wes Turner wrote:
>
>> There was a thread about adding __cite__ to things and a tool to collect
>> those citations awhile back.
>>
>> "[Python-ideas] Add a __cite__ method for scientific packages"
>> http://markmail.org/thread/rekmbmh64qxwcind
>>
>> Which CPython source file should contain this __cite__ value?
>>
>> ... On a related note, you should ask the list admin to append a URL to
>> each mailing list message whenever this list is upgraded to mm3; so that
>> you can all be appropriately cited.
>>
>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018, Wes Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Do you guys think we should all cite Grub and BusyBox and bash and libc
>>> and setuptools and pip and openssl and GNU/Linux and LXC and Docker; or
>>> else it's plagiarism for us all?
>>>
>>> #OpenAccess
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018, Stephen J. Turnbull <
>>> turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>
Chris Barker via Python-Dev writes:
> But "I wrote some code in Python to produce these statistics" --
> does that need a citation?
That depends on what you mean by "statistics" and whether (as one
should) one makes the code available. If the code is published or
"available on request", definitely, Python should be cited. If not,
and by "statistics" you mean the kind of things provided by Steven
d'Aprano's excellent statistics module (mean, median, standard
deviation, etc), maybe no citation is needed. But anything more
esoteric than that (even linear regression), yeah, I would say you
should cite both Python and any reference you used to learn the
algorithm or formulas, in the context of mentioning that your
statistics are home-brew, not produced by one of the recognized
applications for doing so.
> If so, maybe that would take a different form.
Yes, it would. But not so different: eg, version is analogous to
edition when citing a book.
> Anyway, hard to make this decision without some idea how the
> citation is intended to be used.
Same as any other citation, (1) to give credit to those responsible
for providing a resource (this is why publishers and their metadata of
city are still conventionally included), and (2) to show where that
resource can be obtained. AFAICS, both motivations are universally
applicable in polite society. NB: Replication is an important reason
for wanting to acquire the resource, but it's not the only one.
I think underlying your comment is the question of *what* resource is
being cited. I can think of three offhand that might be characterized
as "Python". First, the PSF, as a provider of funding. There is a
conventional form for this: a footnote on the title or author's name
saying "The author acknowledges [a]
grant [grant identifier if available] from the Python Software
Foundation." I usually orally mention them in presentations, too.
That one's easy; *everybody* should *always* do that.
The rest of these, sort of an ideal to strive for. If you keep a
bibliographic database, and there are now quite a few efforts to crowd
source them, it's easier to go the whole 9 yards than to skimp. But
except in cases where we don't need to even mention the code, probably
we should be citing, for reasons of courtesy to readers as well as
authors, editors, and publishers (as disgusting as many publishers are
Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python
I just got caught up on the thread. This is a really great discussion. Thank you for all the contributions. Before we get into the details, let's go back to the main use case we are trying to solve. *As a user, I am writing an academic paper and I need to cite Python. * Let's throw reproducibility out the window for now (<--- something I never thought I would say), because that should be captured in the code, not in the citations. So, if we don't need the specific version of Python, then maybe creating one citation is all we need. And that gives it some good Google juice as well. Thoughts? (Once we nail down one or many, I think we can then move into the details of the content of the citation.) -Jackie On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:47 AM Wes Turner wrote: > There was a thread about adding __cite__ to things and a tool to collect > those citations awhile back. > > "[Python-ideas] Add a __cite__ method for scientific packages" > http://markmail.org/thread/rekmbmh64qxwcind > > Which CPython source file should contain this __cite__ value? > > ... On a related note, you should ask the list admin to append a URL to > each mailing list message whenever this list is upgraded to mm3; so that > you can all be appropriately cited. > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018, Wes Turner wrote: > >> Do you guys think we should all cite Grub and BusyBox and bash and libc >> and setuptools and pip and openssl and GNU/Linux and LXC and Docker; or >> else it's plagiarism for us all? >> >> #OpenAccess >> >> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018, Stephen J. Turnbull < >> turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote: >> >>> Chris Barker via Python-Dev writes: >>> >>> > But "I wrote some code in Python to produce these statistics" -- >>> > does that need a citation? >>> >>> That depends on what you mean by "statistics" and whether (as one >>> should) one makes the code available. If the code is published or >>> "available on request", definitely, Python should be cited. If not, >>> and by "statistics" you mean the kind of things provided by Steven >>> d'Aprano's excellent statistics module (mean, median, standard >>> deviation, etc), maybe no citation is needed. But anything more >>> esoteric than that (even linear regression), yeah, I would say you >>> should cite both Python and any reference you used to learn the >>> algorithm or formulas, in the context of mentioning that your >>> statistics are home-brew, not produced by one of the recognized >>> applications for doing so. >>> >>> > If so, maybe that would take a different form. >>> >>> Yes, it would. But not so different: eg, version is analogous to >>> edition when citing a book. >>> >>> > Anyway, hard to make this decision without some idea how the >>> > citation is intended to be used. >>> >>> Same as any other citation, (1) to give credit to those responsible >>> for providing a resource (this is why publishers and their metadata of >>> city are still conventionally included), and (2) to show where that >>> resource can be obtained. AFAICS, both motivations are universally >>> applicable in polite society. NB: Replication is an important reason >>> for wanting to acquire the resource, but it's not the only one. >>> >>> I think underlying your comment is the question of *what* resource is >>> being cited. I can think of three offhand that might be characterized >>> as "Python". First, the PSF, as a provider of funding. There is a >>> conventional form for this: a footnote on the title or author's name >>> saying "The author acknowledges [a] >>> grant [grant identifier if available] from the Python Software >>> Foundation." I usually orally mention them in presentations, too. >>> That one's easy; *everybody* should *always* do that. >>> >>> The rest of these, sort of an ideal to strive for. If you keep a >>> bibliographic database, and there are now quite a few efforts to crowd >>> source them, it's easier to go the whole 9 yards than to skimp. But >>> except in cases where we don't need to even mention the code, probably >>> we should be citing, for reasons of courtesy to readers as well as >>> authors, editors, and publishers (as disgusting as many publishers are >>> as members of society, they do play a role in providing many resources >>> ---we should find ways to compete them into good behavior, not >>> ostracize them). >>> >>> The second is the Python *language and standard library*. Then the >>> Language Reference and/or the Library Reference should be cited >>> briefly when Python is first mentioned, and in the text introducing a >>> program or program fragment, with a full citation in the bibliography. >>> I tentatively suggest that the metadata for the Language Reference >>> would be >>> >>> Author: principal author(s) (Guido?) et al. OR python.org OR >>> Python Contributors >>> Title: The Python Language Reference >>> Version: to match Python version used (if relevant, different >>> versions each get full citations),
Re: [Python-Dev] Store startup modules as C structures for 20%+ startup speed improvement?
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 23:28, Neil Schemenauer wrote: > > On 2018-09-14, Larry Hastings wrote: > > [..] adding the stat calls back in costs you half the startup. So > > any mechanism where we're talking to the disk _at all_ simply > > isn't going to be as fast. > > Okay, so if we use hundreds of small .pyc files scattered all over > the disk, that's bad? Who would have thunk it. ;-P > > We could have a new format, .pya (compiled python archive) that has > data for many .pyc files in it. In normal runs you would have one > or just and handlful of these things (e.g. one for stdlib, one for > your app and all the packages it uses). Then you mmap these just > once and rely on OS page faults to bring in the data as you need it. > The .pya would have a hash table at the start or end that tells you > the offset for each module. Isn't that essentially what putting the stdlib in a zipfile does? (See the windows embedded distribution for an example). It probably uses normal IO rather than mmap, but maybe adding a "use mmap" flag to the zipfile module would be a more general enhancement that zipimport could use for free. Paul ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
