On 11/14/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb / cesmail.net> wrote: > Well ... > > 1. Ruby is the newest language in my toolbox, running something like six > years behind R and ten years behind Perl. The other side of that coin, > though, is that I've *never* learned Python and don't plan to. :) sure. But I'm not clear about the point you're trying to make. What am I missing? > 2. As long as your focus is results ASAP, you're always going to favor > the old tools and quick hacks like shelling out to the command line > interface of your favorite open-source application for the domain of > interest. exactly. which is the problem. at least, this is specifically the issue with my involvement / progress. I'm willing to give it some time, thought and code - but I don't feel I currently don't have the time (nor coding efficiency) to actually make this coalesce into a proper project. So like you say, the general approach has to change. If a small group got interested and focused on it, I think the momentum could go a long way. The immediate difficulty is agreeing on some features. ThoseThatCameBefore have made many workable solutions, several of which I've used religiously (e.g. NArray and rb-gsl). > 3. As I noted on another post, there is a "scientific Ruby" project. So > there is a place for "us". yes. A good reminder. Cameron