I understand his "efficient binary as Ansi C" partially as a
deployment requirement, and independent of cross-platform issues. As a
scientist, being able to share my software with colleagues is a non
trivial matter. Python does not make this easy today.
F# has nothing to do with VB: F# is a ML-language inspired from OCAML,
and run on top of the CLR. It can thus leverage the huge .net
framework (lack of non numerical API is one of the biggest matlab
hindrance, and comparatively big advantage of python + numpy/scipy),
and benefits from the much more efficient implementation compared to
python (under the currently CPython implementation at least).
Some recent F# versions are compatible with mono, making it compatible
on most platforms that matter today for research (but of course, you
lose the IDE integration outside windows).
David- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I wish . . .
For comparisons, Mathcad has the symbolic notation appropriate for
mathematical communications. I like features of Mathematica and Maple
but Mathcad provides for the user to 'stay' with mathematical
symbolism longer. I prefer Matlab execution environment. So I
develop concepts in Mathcad, prove them in Matlab and then compile to
through C where direct performance is required. Maple and Matlab have
this type of relation.
Matlab, from The Mathworks, has a companion product called Simulink.
This allows the user to graphically build ‘algorithms’ in block form.
There is a similar Python function.
Each of these components would best be served if allowed to exist
independently but supported with transparent integration. I would
like to develop in a stable user environment - a stable GUI. And then
allow efficient algorithms behind the scenes.
By separating the functionality of the workspace, the user can be
given (or create at will) a GUI that suites her desires and provides
for the creativity and productivity she chooses. The functionality
under the GUI should then be pluggable. Developers can provide
solutions from many directions, compete for varying performance
requirements, enhance functional features technology changes, and
still not disturb the fragile user interface.
Allow the user the comfort of home. Let them keep whatever GUI suits
them and provide for their deployment (if any) needs behind the
scenes.
Ray
