Skip to content

First modifications to take care of the editor remarks

Pierre Augier requested to merge topic/default/after-submission into branch/default

@avmo we can work together on this MR...

  • change title
  • Rewrite the opening paragraph

"I think your correspondence should be framed a little differently. You write that the main point of Zwart's article was to argue for putting Python aside for a more efficient language... this was not in fact the main point, but a side point... the main point was to get us (astronomers/programmers) thinking about (energy) efficiency whenever we sit down to code. Whatever the language.

I think the main suggestion you make -- that students should be taught to optimise code -- is very similar to Zwart's main take-away message, actually. However, he suggested not bothering with Python, heading straight for a natively more efficient language, whereas you are arguing that Python can be efficient, and should be retained for its other attractive qualities. I think that is a fine point to make, and this really should be the focus of your correspondence. If you are in agreement here, then I would suggest that you could just re-write the opening paragraph, and the rest of the draft is fine."

"I think this misconstrues the Zwart article. Python is not the focus. The article clearly states: "One purpose of this Comment is to raise this [ecological] awareness, and present best practices for (super)computer usage and choice of programming language." and the take-home message is that whenever we (astronomers/programmers) write code, we should be mindful of the environmental impact.

Perhaps the mention of Python later on in the article is the most controversial aspect, but I think the rest deserves recognition, and shouldn't be detracted from."

"This is very close to the point of Zwart. His point is that students find Python so user-friendly and 'fast enough' that they are not aware that a performance increase is possible... they do not look to optimise their code. And then this can be alleviated with education, which is also your point.

I think the disagreement between you is that Zwart suggests students should begin with other languages that are naturally more efficient, whereas you are suggesting that Python is fine, as long as students are educated enough to learn to optimise it. I believe this should be the focus point of your article."

  • Try to decrease the length (already started, need more?)

"The length is a little excessive... I would prefer to see it less than 1,000 words long (currently I think it is ~1,100). I wonder if the first half of the AOT/JIT compiler paragraph can be removed, and it start with "the most standard way..." or even "the inefficiency of the interpreter..."?"

  • Write a nice answer to the email. We can write it in a file in the repo.

  • Fix affiliation

  • Remove footnotes

  • Add Acknowledgements and Competing interests

Edited by Pierre Augier

Merge request reports