An open access book on scientific visualization using Python and Matplotlib
github.com
github.com
https://rougier.github.io/python-visualization-landscape/lan...
and your other interesting projects.
I've only done a simple line chart so far, and I used this oz library for interfacing with Clojure and displaying results in the browser. [1]
One of the problems was lack of error messages. Not sure what part of the tooling was failing me there.
https://altair-viz.github.io/gallery/scatter_tooltips.html?h...
I've also used the same stuff in a GUI - where the SVGs are rendered directly in the UI (I just parse the SVG elements and draw to the Canvas)
Oz/Vega/etc. innately have this blackbox JS layout/rendering layer which I'm weary of. Here you are just manipulating SVG hiccup directly in Clojure. And then at the very last stage it's exported to SVG's XML syntax.
There is also the Data is Beautiful reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/
I'm a full stack web dev, not a data scientist, but Observable has dramatically changed my relationship to code. The last time I felt this excited by programming was about 20 years ago when I was in middle school and discovered Game Maker's scripting language...
J'étais à Polytechnique à Paris pendant deux ans, j'aimerais que les Américains soient aussi au logiciel "Open Source" que les Français
It is still more difficult than we’d like to get funded for Open Source development (as a non-CS scientist), but there have been some encouraging noise recently, and some political will to reduce our reliance on black-box commercial software.
While I understand that language is evolving and that only under a "strict definition" of open access does it mean removing barriers to copying and reuse [1], it's seems pretty duplicitous to say it's "open" while putting it under a non-commercial license.
[0] https://github.com/rougier/scientific-visualization-book/blo...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_access&oldid...
I can't really agree with that. For open source, yes, the OSD does make it clear that the definition does not permit licenses that prevent commercial resale. But "open access" for scientific works, or just technical documentation in general, does not seem - in vernacular use - to entail such a strict requirement.
Of course as an advocate of "free culture" in the most general sense, I might say I would prefer a book, paper, article, etc. to be published under something less restrictive. But I see nothing "duplicitious"[1] about this particular usage.
Consider that the corresponding Wikipedia entry on Open Access[2] contains this blurb, which supports the idea that both "gratis open access" and "libre open access" would be considered sub-types of the more general idea of "open access."
Similar to the free content definition, the terms 'gratis' and 'libre' were used in the BOAI definition to distinguish between free to read versus free to reuse.[38] Gratis open access (Free to read) refers to online access free of charge, and libre open access (open access) refers to online access free of charge plus some additional re-use rights
I'm pointing out that you've stated it's "open access" without making it open access, at least for a strict interpretation of open access.
on the same topic, I've seen people say that GPL isn't free for example.