matplotlib-devel Mailing List for matplotlib

Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> * pylab: I love the pylab API. I want (and I am not the only one) to
> be able to construct a plot with a pylab script, or on the command
> line. I would like to be able to modify it interactively
> afterwards. Chaco's pylab equivalent is orders of magnitude below
> the real pylab.
I wonder why -- it sure looks doable.
> * Output quality. Things like laTeX support, pdf and eps output,
hmm -- I thought Kiva was designed around DisplayPDF, which you'd think 
would give you pdf support easily!
> just an constant attention to small details like the tick size,
> etc... give matplotlib an excellent output quality.
Interesting, the examples I've seen of Chaco output sure look nice, but 
maybe it takes more tweaking to get there.
> the two projects have different goals.
The goals I see here seem to match pretty well:
https://svn.enthought.com/enthought/wiki/ChacoProject
Indeed, under PyCon2008 toDo, I see:
"Fully verify PDF and SVG backends"
also:
"seemless install for chaco2 and chaco2demo packages for Win32, OS X, 
Ubuntu, Redhat"
I did just find this (with some of your stuff, Gael), for a bit more info:
http://code.enthought.com/chaco/docs/faq.shtml#comparison
Some thoughts of mine:
A few years back, before MPL, I was very excited about Chaco. however, 
at that time, Enthought ended up focusing on their needs, and things 
like non-Windows platforms, etc, were simple not supported.
However, it looks like enthought is making a lot of effort to have their 
stuff play well with the open source community -- being able to use 
individual packages (traits, etc.), more support for other platforms, etc.
So it comes a bit down to code base -- I think the goals of Chaco and 
MPL overlap a LOT -- I think different priorities have been put on them 
(more focus on GUI interactivity in Chaco, more focus on easy scripting 
in MPL), but both projects want to be able to do the same things in the 
long run.
So it comes down to architecture, I guess -- which has the better 
architecture to build on in the future? I ahve no clue, I don't know 
either one well enough to comment.
I guess it's time for me to dig into Chaco more.
-Chris
-- 
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
Chr...@no...

On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:45:28AM -0800, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> > I am so happy to hear you say this. With Traits in MPL, it would be
> > possible to build an interactive plotting application based around
> > envisage, using other envisage plugins ....
> I'm really not trying to be a troll, but tell me again what MPL has that 
> Chaco doesn't? It seems there is a bit of "we want MPL to be more like 
> Chaco", but Chaco is open source, and at least nominally back-end 
> independent, so why is there this duplicate effort?
You are not at all a troll. I think this is a very important question to
ask one self. I have thought about it a lot.
Here is my answer:
 * pylab: I love the pylab API. I want (and I am not the only one) to
 be able to construct a plot with a pylab script, or on the command
 line. I would like to be able to modify it interactively
 afterwards. Chaco's pylab equivalent is orders of magnitude below
 the real pylab.
 * Output quality. Things like laTeX support, pdf and eps output, or
 just an constant attention to small details like the tick size,
 etc... give matplotlib an excellent output quality. I got used to
 it and I want to use it for all my publications, and actually I am
 quite happy having it for my day to day work to.
I would love to see MPL and Chaco merge, to be able to get the best of
both worlds, but I don't see it happening any soon, as the two projects
have different goals.
My 2 cents,
Gaël

Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> I am so happy to hear you say this. With Traits in MPL, it would be
> possible to build an interactive plotting application based around
> envisage, using other envisage plugins ....
I'm really not trying to be a troll, but tell me again what MPL has that 
Chaco doesn't? It seems there is a bit of "we want MPL to be more like 
Chaco", but Chaco is open source, and at least nominally back-end 
independent, so why is there this duplicate effort?
 From a glance, it sure looks like you could write a pylab work-alike 
around Chaco -- at least for wx -- other back-ends would be more work.
-Chris
-- 
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
Chr...@no...

On Feb 10, 2008 5:12 PM, Erik Tollerud <eri...@gm...> wrote:
> I've been working on an application that uses matplotlib as its
> plotting library, and I've been noticing a steady decrease in
It looks like there is some confusion in your patch vis-a-vis the
migration from the old matplotlib transformation architecture (no on a
branch) to the new (now in the trunk). I'm attaching the migration
document. For example, your patch removes
blended_transform_factory lines (new transforms call on the trunk) and
adds blend_xy_sep_transform lines (old transforms call on the 0.91
maintenance branch).
You can patch either the maintenance branch or the trunk or both, but
I think the patch as submitted is a little mixed up if I am reading
this correctly.
JDH