[SciPy-Dev] Consensus on the future of integrate.ode
Juan Luis Cano
juanlu001 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 9 18:10:14 EDT 2013
On 09/09/2013 10:27 AM, Geoff Oxberry wrote:
> PETSc and scipy are trying to do different, but related things. PETSc
> and petsc4py are trying to provide a software platform for developing
> computational science applications that can run on anything from
> desktops with a single processor to a Blue Gene/Q with tens or
> hundreds of thousands of processors.
>
> SciPy is more geared towards rapid prototyping and computational
> exploration on a single processor, so it helps to have a more
> intuitive API, preferably something like MATLAB since that's so
> prevalent in education, and a lot of people who use SciPy come from a
> MATLAB background. Even though the licenses are compatible, I'm not
> sure you'd want to incorporate elements of petsc4py into SciPy
> (although it would be incredibly cool to be able to use any of their
> extremely long list of ODE or DAE solvers).
I think this is a good point that has been made. Maybe we could aim for
a less complex package that fits our (more modest) needs.
> The non sundials solvers in odes are also not as state of the art
> as some that are added in above two interfaces.
> The problem with above packages is their license and the fact that
> they are packages with parsing language, ..., see eg:
> https://github.com/casadi/casadi/blob/master/examples/python/dae_single_shooting_in_30_lines.py
> .
>
What if we just stay with your odes? It's still a big improvement,
perhaps a good tradeoff between state of the art algorithms, simplicity
and licensing compatibility.
>
> Note that you can pass an array of times to sundials at which you
> want output, and then all iteration is done inside sundials, so
> the point of time step outside of sundials is not needed (though
> in many problems you'll want to do stepping controlled in a python
> loop).
>
> Benny
>
>
> Remark 2 Frontend.
>
> We can define a new integrate.ode interface that wraps
> scikits.odes. It seems that you already have some ideas in
> that area, mentioning the MATLAB style. I looked at the MATLAB
> docs just now and spend 20 minutes thinking how this might
> look if it were more pythonic. You can take a look here, fork
> your own version to make changes or add comments,
>
> https://gist.github.com/danieljfarrell/6482713
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at scipy.org <mailto:SciPy-Dev at scipy.org>
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at scipy.org <mailto:SciPy-Dev at scipy.org>
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Geoffrey Oxberry, Ph.D., E.I.T.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20130910/8e4f9fe4/attachment.html>
More information about the SciPy-Dev
mailing list