4 ms·

I couldn't agree more. This is related to another recent HN posting (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3104598 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3104598) an

by wesm 15y ago

I couldn't agree more. This is related to another recent HN posting (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3104598 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3104598) and discussions at PyCodeConf in Miami. There's a general feeling (which I've experienced in many of my interactions with non-scientific Python programmers) that the folks working on pure Python don't really "get" the scientific Python community. We would all understand each other better if the PyPy folks or the Python core developers spent a year, say, working at Enthought on scientific Python consulting projects or working on a core project that uses NumPy/SciPy like scikit-learn, matplotlib, statsmodels, theano, pandas, or many, many others. A small annoyance but having a matrix multiplication infix operator would actually be a huge help but the idea has met a great deal of resistance from core Python as being "too domain specific". It strikes me as very short-sighted as I think Python is well-poised to make waves in the data analysis, statistics, and high performance computing ecosystem. Having used Python to build large systems for financial applications, I am acutely aware of how Python is being used in that industry and some of the ways that it needs to adapt to be more relevant. So bravo, Travis, for speaking up! Also, his point that Cython (http://cython.org http://cython.org) tends to be ignored in the broader discussion about performance computing in Python is especially flagrant when you consider how it's revolutionized the way that scipythonistas (myself included) speed up their code over the last 2-3 years.

fijal 15y ago
Note that as PyPy we deliberately don't take part in the language design discussions. We won't implement the array infix operator precisely because other people make those decisions.
- kragen 15y ago
  Why not? Don't you think the language design discussion would be improved by your knowledge?
IanOzsvald 15y ago
I spoke with Travis on Friday at Enthought and he opened my eyes to some of the possible problems of the pypy-numpy effort (which I've started discussing: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pypy-dev/2011-October/008601.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pypy-dev/2011-October/00860... ). I hadn't realised that the port might exclude use of the rest of SciPy, this strikes me as a massive missed opportunity if it comes to pass. Perhaps a few other knowledgeable folk could post in the pypy-dev thread so we can reasonably understand the limitations and possibilities of the various approaches?
- fuzzyman 15y ago
  I don't really know what you mean by supporting numpy on pypy "excludes" scipy (other than in the short term). If you mean you assumed that the pypy team would port all of scipy as well as numpy, that seems like an unrealistic expectation for an initial port! An initial port seems like the only way forward from the point of view of the pypy team. I think it is unrealistic to expect the pypy team to take on the work of changing numpy so that it is more friendly to alternative implementations. I would certainly expect them to be involved in the discussion though. The article also seems to miss that there is work ongoing to bring pypy support to Cython.
  - wesm 15y ago
    Well, the big problem to solve with SciPy is the fact that there is more, respectively, of C, C++, and Fortran in the SciPy codebase than Python (http://www.ohloh.net/p/scipy http://www.ohloh.net/p/scipy). Part of why Python has succeeded in scientific computing is integration of legacy codebases (via f2py or C extensions or...). There are probably man-years of work involved in devising a solution-- which by the time it's complete may be basically irrelevant or, worse, fragment the community. I personally think that going down this rabbit hole (porting 10 years of scientific Python libraries to PyPy) would amount to an exercise in vanity rather than producing the kinds of revolutionary changes to array-oriented computing that need to happen soon to deal with the large-scale data processing challenges of the present and future. Having recently used GPUs to speed up statistical inference algorithms by a factor of 50 or more, I am not that motivated by a JIT beating C in some cases (as Travis wrote: "C speed is the wrong target"). Many in the SciPy community are convinced that NumPy will not provide the computational foundation that we need going forward, and they are going to step up and start building the next generation NumPy (or whatever it's going to be called). We'd rather have more of the smartest computer scientists in the Python community focused on this problem (building more sophisticated data processing pipelines for use in Python) than on speeding up the Python code that by my estimation doesn't matter that much.
    - vgnet 15y ago
      AFAIUI, what you're missing is that PyPy can (and often does) interface directly to C libraries, from RPython. So the prospect of re-implementing those specialized codebases isn't a real issue: only the CPython-API based wrappers would need re-implementing. I believe those are a small part of the total code you mention.

by wesm 15y ago

fijal 15y ago

Note that as PyPy we deliberately don't take part in the language design discussions. We won't implement the array infix operator precisely because other people make those decisions.

kragen 15y ago
Why not? Don't you think the language design discussion would be improved by your knowledge?

IanOzsvald 15y ago

I spoke with Travis on Friday at Enthought and he opened my eyes to some of the possible problems of the pypy-numpy effort (which I've started discussing: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pypy-dev/2011-October/008601.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pypy-dev/2011-October/00860... ). I hadn't realised that the port might exclude use of the rest of SciPy, this strikes me as a massive missed opportunity if it comes to pass. Perhaps a few other knowledgeable folk could post in the pypy-dev thread so we can reasonably understand the limitations and possibilities of the various approaches?

fuzzyman 15y ago
I don't really know what you mean by supporting numpy on pypy "excludes" scipy (other than in the short term). If you mean you assumed that the pypy team would port all of scipy as well as numpy, that seems like an unrealistic expectation for an initial port! An initial port seems like the only way forward from the point of view of the pypy team. I think it is unrealistic to expect the pypy team to take on the work of changing numpy so that it is more friendly to alternative implementations. I would certainly expect them to be involved in the discussion though. The article also seems to miss that there is work ongoing to bring pypy support to Cython.
- wesm 15y ago
  Well, the big problem to solve with SciPy is the fact that there is more, respectively, of C, C++, and Fortran in the SciPy codebase than Python (http://www.ohloh.net/p/scipy http://www.ohloh.net/p/scipy). Part of why Python has succeeded in scientific computing is integration of legacy codebases (via f2py or C extensions or...). There are probably man-years of work involved in devising a solution-- which by the time it's complete may be basically irrelevant or, worse, fragment the community. I personally think that going down this rabbit hole (porting 10 years of scientific Python libraries to PyPy) would amount to an exercise in vanity rather than producing the kinds of revolutionary changes to array-oriented computing that need to happen soon to deal with the large-scale data processing challenges of the present and future. Having recently used GPUs to speed up statistical inference algorithms by a factor of 50 or more, I am not that motivated by a JIT beating C in some cases (as Travis wrote: "C speed is the wrong target"). Many in the SciPy community are convinced that NumPy will not provide the computational foundation that we need going forward, and they are going to step up and start building the next generation NumPy (or whatever it's going to be called). We'd rather have more of the smartest computer scientists in the Python community focused on this problem (building more sophisticated data processing pipelines for use in Python) than on speeding up the Python code that by my estimation doesn't matter that much.
  - vgnet 15y ago
    AFAIUI, what you're missing is that PyPy can (and often does) interface directly to C libraries, from RPython. So the prospect of re-implementing those specialized codebases isn't a real issue: only the CPython-API based wrappers would need re-implementing. I believe those are a small part of the total code you mention.