[Biopython-dev] Ideas for Biopython 2.0

[João Rodrigues]

So, in theory, you can end up with dozens of extensions that are out of
sync with the core in terms of 'core' dependencies and it's up to the
maintainers of those extensions to keep them up-to-date. That's my main
concern. We have a monolith that works. It is conservative and that's
exactly why it works. Otherwise, for example, I would install the core and
your Cython-based lightining fast PopGen code and then you grow bored of
it, a new version of Cython comes along that has some incompatibilities
with your code, and now it doesn't work. Worse even, I release a blinding
fast PDBParser using a new feature in Cython and now you have two
incompatible extensions.

Being very honest, there is no barrier to anyone developing anything new
here. If you want to use Cython, go ahead and do it and then worst case
scenario, we have a dependency warning and check that can simply skip
compilation of that code. It's what happens with Numpy at the moment IIRC.
You can also bundle the c code, instead of compiling the pyx on install,
and compile it regularly using GCC, skipping Cython altogether.

I agree that we should 'refresh' our dependencies to be able to do cool
things. And modularity is incredibly attractive. But the main advantage of
modularity - lowering the standards of biopython code - is also, in my
opinion, it's main disadvantage.

Question: How is scikit handling their different modules?

2017-06-28 8:05 GMT-07:00 Tiago Antão <tiagoantao at gmail.com>:

> It can see plenty of issues where it could help. In my specific case all
> the PopGen code is stopped for 10 years because I would need to write very
> fast code (say in Cython). This would be an extension module, not a core
> module because it would impart a very big dependency on the system.
>
> Modules would allow a core with very strict policies and dependencies
> _but_ extensions that could be way more relaxed.
>
> It would also lower the barrier of entry for new content. Everyone could
> publish an extension. If the extension would survive time (which most do
> not - creating a maintenance burden in the core) then it could eventually
> be made a core extension. Now the policy in practice is to add very little
> innovation out of the fear that it will become stagnant and not-supported
> by the main author (say after publication). An extension system would
> accommodate both innovation whereas preserving the core quality.
>
> Currently we have a gigantic monolith that in practice imposes very
> conservative technologies and changes. I suspect that is why we do not see
> anything really exciting with Biopython for the better part of the last
> decade,
>
> On 28 June 2017 at 04:25, Michiel de Hoon <mjldehoon at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Joao here. I don't see an immediate and overriding problem
>> that modularity would solve, and I can see many drawbacks.
>>
>> Best,
>> -Michiel
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 26, 2017 11:03 AM, João Rodrigues <
>> j.p.g.l.m.rodrigues at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Copied from the other thread where I mistakenly posted:
>>
>> I think we should focus on other topics such as modularity. What do the
>> proponents of the said modularity say about it? What are its advantages? I
>> personally think a big disadvantage is that with one package install you
>> get a wide array of tools for a variety of subjects. With a constellation
>> of modules you might end up with an up-to-date core and an out-of-date lone
>> module somewhere, which makes things much much harder not only to maintain
>> but also to debug in case of issues.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Biopython-dev mailing list
>> Biopython-dev at mailman.open-bio.org
>> http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biopython-dev
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Tiago Antao
> Scientific and HPC programmer
> http://tiago.org
> https://github.com/tiagoantao/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/biopython-dev/attachments/20170628/66ccfea7/attachment.html>