On 10/25/05, Phil Tomson <ptkwt / aracnet.com> wrote:

> Personally, I'd really like it if it were in the standard lib because then
> I wouldn't have to install it on all the different machines I want to use
> it on (Currently running simulations on a Linux box, two Solaris boxen,
> and OSX).

Yeah, me too.

Along this line, I thought it would be handy if code written with
NArray could be shared with others on platforms less inclined to
compile extensions.  My preferred platforms seem to always have a
compiler in the path, but I hear this is not always the case.  I
figured including NArray might be a reasonable step towards playing
well with others.

> However, I think the real pushback is that the standard ruby
> distro is getting rather large and adding something with the limited
> appeal of narray may not be such a good idea in the effort to keep Ruby
> trim.

A good point.  Given the limited responses to this thread, I'll take
it as confirmation of limited appeal.

> probably help, although I am using a version of narray that I have
> modified so it doesn't do me much good.

Another good point.  Some of the beauty of NArray is the ease of
extending it, which would again require compilation.

*sigh*  Great.  Now all I've done is publicly concede to arguments
against including NArray. That's not what I was trying to do...  :)

I guess I was just envisioning ruby grwoing in appeal for large data
analysis (out of the box).  An alternative to IDL or MATLAB with legs
to easily do web services and text munging.  If ruby had something
like NArray built in, one can get a good chunk quickly moving before
reaching for external packages.  Plus, it'd at least strongly suggest 
an "approved"  numerical extension to further build on - perhaps
consolidating efforts.

Cameron