[SciPy-User] Least-squares fittings with bounds: why is scipy not up to the task?

[josef.pktd at gmail.com]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Pauli Virtanen <pav at iki.fi> wrote:
> 09.03.2012 22:13, Matthew Newville kirjoitti:
> [clip]
>> Well, I understand you don't necessarily consider yourself to be a scipy
>> dev, but I'll ask anyway:  How many pull requests have been made, and
>> how many have been accepted?  Perhaps I am not reading github's Pull
>> Request link correctly, but that seems to indicate that the numbers are
>> 17 and 0.  Surely, those cannot be correct.      Unless I am counting
>> wrong, 5 of the 17 (total? outstanding?) pull requests listed for
>> scipy/scipy involve optimization.
>
> Wrong: 17 open, 99 accepted.
>
> [clip]
>> Well, there was a discussion "Alternative to scipy.optimize" in the past
>> two weeks on scipy-users that mentioned lmfit, and several over the past
>> several months, and apparently requests about mpfit in the more distant
>> past.  And yet two scipy contributers (according to github's list, I am
>> counting you) responded to the original request for features **exactly
>> like lmfit** with something reading an awful lot like "Well, you'll have
>> to write one".    Perhaps insular is not a fair characterization -- how
>> would you characterize that?
>
> Come on. The correct characterization is just: "busy". I did not
> remember that your project existed as it was announced half a year ago
> with no proposal that it should be integrated, and did not read the
> recent thread on scipy-user.

just as a reminder there is also https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/90

openopt started out as a scikits.

It doesn't look easy to me to come up with an interface to optimizers
that satisfy "all" use cases.

(and there is only one Pauli)

Josef



>
> --
> Pauli Virtanen
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-User mailing list
> SciPy-User at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user