[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: kernel density smoother?
From: |
Jaroslav Hajek |
Subject: |
Re: kernel density smoother? |
Date: |
Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:12:10 +0100 |
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 5:10 PM, forkandwait <address@hidden> wrote:
>> a good indication that people shouldn't
>> declare me the Octave-Forge leader). Concrete ideas on how to improve
>> the situation are, however, most welcome as it is a problem that
>> concerns me.
>
> I guess I may have been a little "flip" in my comments. I am not sure strong
> leadership is necessarily the answer, though it might help. What is great
> about Python is that there is a SINGLE, documented, well defined standard
> library.
It's basically the same with Octave, I think.
> This library grows steadily, but there is a discussion process before
> something makes it into the library, there are votes on where it goes, and
> then
> it is documented/ enforced / distributed at the same level as the language
> itself. And whenever there is no clear consensus or the process gets bogged
> down, Guido reserves the right to declare by fiat what should happen.
>
> In this particular example, I would NOT have voted to have the kernel density
> smoother function in the econometrics package, but rather in either statistics
> or core. And I would have statistics ALWAYS distributed with the main package.
And I would vote against it. I think that it's better to have just the
basic statistical functions in core Octave.
We usually do sort of a ballot before making significant changes to
the core library. Last year, the finance & control pkgs were removed,
for instance.
> But I definitely think it belongs with a standard distribution of octave, and
> its code should be tracked in the main source. Same with textread.
Textread is now part of Octave.
> Same
> probably with csv2cell, after a process of deciding to put it into the
> standard
> library, even though the other large competitor doesn't have it in their
> distribution (which might be a criteria for inclusion). Etc.
>
I don't know what it should do, but feel free to propose it to be included.
> THere are several "levels" of library -- planet python (or whatever it is
> called) is where random people put up their scripts. Then scripts that get
> used regularly get adopted into the inner circle and tracked with the main
> source.
>
> I don't have a surplus of time or skill, but I have a LOT of free soft karma
> to
> repay if I can help.
>
--
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek, PhD
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz
- kernel density smoother?, forkandwait, 2010/03/11
- Re: kernel density smoother?, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2010/03/12
- Re: kernel density smoother?, Søren Hauberg, 2010/03/12
- Re: kernel density smoother?, forkandwait, 2010/03/12
- Re: kernel density smoother?, Søren Hauberg, 2010/03/12
- Re: kernel density smoother?, forkandwait, 2010/03/13
- Re: kernel density smoother?,
Jaroslav Hajek <=
- Re: kernel density smoother?, Søren Hauberg, 2010/03/13
- Re: kernel density smoother?, Michael Creel, 2010/03/14
Re: kernel density smoother?, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2010/03/12
Re: kernel density smoother?, Michael Creel, 2010/03/13
Re: kernel density smoother?, Michael Creel, 2010/03/13