Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy x Matlab: some synthetic benchmarks

[Fernando P. <Fer...@co...>]

Perry Greenfield wrote:
> It's not a new idea. I raised it some time ago and I don't think it was  

I wasn't claiming authorship, sorry if it sounded like that :)  In fact, I 
remember specifically talking with you about this at scipy'03, in the context 
of small array performance issues for the at-the-time-nascent numarray, and 
I'm sure similar things have been done many times before.  I've had it 
floating in my head since I first saw blitz, back in 2001, and blitz probably 
got it from...  There's nothing really new under the sun ;)

> new then either. I have to believe that if you allowed only Float64  
> (and perhaps a complex variant) and used other restrictions then it  
> would be much faster for small arrays. One would think it would be much  
> easier to implement than Numeric/numarray/numpy... I've always thought  
> that those looking for really fast small array performance would be  
> better served by something like this. But you'd really have to fight  
> off feature creep. ("This almost meets my needs. If it could only do  
> xxx")

Couldn't that last issue be well dealt with by the fact that today's numpy is 
fairly subclassing-friendly? (which, if I remember correctly, wasn't quite the 
case with at least old Numeric).

Cheers,

f