On May 20, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> Jeff, you should really learn Python and give a try to mpi4py. Even if
> you do not consider Python a language for serious, production work
> :-), it would be a VERY productive one for writing tests targeting
Freely admitted laziness on my part (read: not enough cycles in the day to do what Cisco already pays me to do...). :-(
> However, mpi4py have a BIG issue: not enough man-power for
> writing decent documentation.
Same issue here! Maybe we should Google Wave it... ;-)
> So you are suggesting my code could be buggy? No way ! ;-) . Slightly
> more serious: almost all my bug reports were discovered while
> unittesting mpi4py and getting failures when running with Open MPI, so
> I'm really confident about my Python bindings.
I can't tell you how much we appreciate these reports.
I know exactly the position you're in; I did the same thing years ago (ick!) with the is (was!) the MPI C++ bindings and with Object Oriented MPI (OOMPI). They were portable packages that ran on lots of different MPI's; their respective test suites found lots of problems in various MPI implementations. The LAM/MPI guys sent me a t-shirt for my efforts, which pretty much locked in my long slide into the deep, dark world of MPI implementers. ;-)
For corporate legal information go to: