From: timr <timrandg@...>
Date: 2010-12-21T17:15:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby and science ?

Hi Michel,
I think you are completely correct in your criticism of ruby's lack of
support for scientific computing, and complex graphing. I think the
problem is that python had a bit of a lead time (~5 yrs.) before ruby
became popular. During that period, many of the scientists switched
from perl to python and began developing the tools they needed. When
Ruby was popularized with rails, python was already established. So
most of the talent that could solve this problem for the ruby
community is already happily doing science with python and has no
reason to switch to a slightly more elegantly designed language (as
some would argue). I learned some R and use ruby to crunch the numbers
and R to plot them. I think it is a reasonable solution. If I did a
lot of data crunching/graphing, I might write a DSL that allowed R
plotting code to be made via a nicer ruby-like syntax, but so far I
haven't been motivated enough. Alternatively, I would switch to
python, I think it would take a couple of weeks to get up to speed as
the two are quite similar conceptually. I think it would be great if
we had a dedicated scientific community to build the tools in ruby,
but I don't see it happening, because python has already filled the
niche.
Tim


On Dec 16, 2:19 am, Michel Demazure <mic...@demazure.com> wrote:
> I am really puzzled.
>
> I am a scientist and I have been using ruby for years. I like thinking
> and programming in ruby, but feel more and more uneasy. I'll try to
> express my feelings below (I am not a native English speaker).
>
> The ruby language and the ruby ecosystem (and the wonderful ruby
> community) fit perfectly with small applications, scripting, web
> frameworks, and so on. When you come to science, it is another story.
> Numerical computing, statistics, whatever, cannot be coded in pure ruby
> and you have to rely on specialized libraries. There are tentative gems
> (generally obsolete and not maintained) to connect ruby to these
> librairies.
>
> Take for instance 'linalg' for linear algebra. It is based on LAPACK.
> You need a Fortran to c converter, but f2c was deprecated, was replaced
> by g2c, and g2c is deprecated but not replaced, waiting for gfortran...
> Moreover, the compilation chain uses uncompatible versions of the c
> compiler (or even of ruby itself). Whether on Linux (Ubuntu Lucid) or on
> Windows, I had to give up. I understand the situation is not different
> on OSX.
>
> The situation is quite similar when you try to connect to the R language
> for statistics, or whatever similar. The web is full of old posts asking
> for help in similar situations with zero answer.
>
> Am I wrong ? Maybe I am too clumsy. But, after all, a programming
> environment is a tool to do your job and deliver. My job is to deliver
> science and I end spending my time compiling (I mean failing to compile)
> libraries.
>
> The advice I usually get is : shift to Python. A very sad perspective
> indeed.
>
> More generally, is there a future for ruby outside its present niches ?
>
> _md
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.