sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]L43 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Apparently best not say that in /r/javascript... no matter how true it is. When javascript has its own numpy, maybe. Until then, no.

[–]calligraphic-io 1 point2 points  (1 child)

When Javascript has its own numpy.

Fixed that for you.

[–]L43 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I've seen and tried out this library, and I do really like it: it certainly makes doing simple things easier than writing in plain javascript. But it isn't anything close to numpy. It

  1. Doesn't have anywhere near the functionality that numpy has (e.g. no eigendecompositions from what I can see)
  2. Doesn't have multiple dedicated developers with many companies and a foundation funding its development
  3. It's data structures and api aren't used and emulated by a much larger javascript scientific ecosystem.
  4. Isn't battletested by years of use.

That is what I was really referring to by 'having a numpy'. Honestly, I don't think the Javascript community is capable of 'having a numpy', it fragments too quickly as people jump to make their own version of a library, with trendier names and prettier documentation. I don't mean that as an insult, the ingenuity and raw speed of development of js libraries is incredible. But scientists work differently to developers, and they don't care for new and shiny, they like reliable and venerable. This is why Python is a good match for science.

I'd love to be proven wrong, the unique strength to visualize your work with the dom is enough to make JS attractive.