Thank you for all your answers. It's one of the most helpful mailing lists I ever joined.
>There is some tutorial documentation, particularly Robert Leftwich's
>tutorial - http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/leftwich_tut.txt. This
>link recently disappeared (by accident) from the FAQ entry
Thank you very much (and kudos for your work, by the way: the more I dive into it, the nicer it looks). I already had seen the faq entry, but the little tutorial by Leftwich with the class list just makes me feel better
>An embedding library will give you those features, plus ones which >pylab does not (e.g. printing support, selecting points and regions).
Ok. What I wanted to know is if in pylab there were hard-coded features that the MPL OO interface has not, or if these features were already present in MPL but simply had to be called and merged together by the user (don't know if I'm being clear here - anyway you seem to point it's the second, happier case).
>It now checks to see if one already exists, so you can to use pylab >from your wxPython application without everything blowing up.
Hmm. Evil temptation! But I'm more and more looking at wx embedding,anyway.
Anyway it's nice to know it's an option if someone wants to hack something someday.
>Be sure to join the wxpython-users mailing list. They (We) are every >bit as helpful as this group.
I really hope so!
>First of all, why not take a look at an existing solution for AFM:
>It looks very good and is already very mature. It provides a plugin >architecture, a modern graphical interface, is portable and seems to be >funded as well. However, it can only analyze surface data, and I don't >know if this is what you meant with '2d graph'.
I didn't know about it. It seems really a good app, and I just mailed to my collegues if they know about it, it could help in our lab. Alas, (1) I'm all in that odd "force spectroscopy" thing (despite being two years I work with AFM, I never did an image!), and I don't see mention about it (2) I'd prefer to code my app to cover my needs. Who knows if it will be the app of someone else too? I hope to do a good enough work for it. I don't like that much to hack just for myself.
Anyway if you know about good force spectroscopy analysis free software, let me know!
>I would also characterize wxMPL as being focused on the
>programmer/script writer, not on the end user of an application. So
>it's not exactly a 'wxPython Plot Widget'. But it might make the code
>of MPlot easier to use/manage/improve.
I don't grasp what do you want to mean... if wxMPL is a wx interface for MPL, it seems focusing on the end user is the programmer's task, isn't it? and it seems right to me. In which sense is MPlot more "focused on the end user"? and what do you mean with "wxMPL is not exactly a 'wxpython plot widget'"?
>On using matplotlib bindings and the Navigator toolbars, I'd guess you
>don't want to do this. The toolbars are ugly, take up screen real
>estate, do stuff you don't need and don't do stuff you do need.
I agree toolbars are not essential, but they're nice IMHO. I don't strictly need them, except for the panning and zooming tools. Hope they're not hard to reproduce, should I have a look at the pylab code?). For the bindings, yes, I'd really like consistency between the graphic toolkit and MPL.
>Finally, I was very happy to see your
>response to the fairly silly 'use some other package', and agree
>completely with your sentiment.
Well, he just tried to be helpful.
Anyway, after having heard both developers, I'm still confused about what to use, if wxMPL or MPlot... I think I'll give wxMPL a try, first.
Thank you all for your long and informative answers. It's a bless to have both the MPL, wxMPL and MPlot developers being here to help me, along with such experienced and friendly users.
It's two years I use almost exclusively free software, and nevertheless the both technical and human wonders of it don't cease to amaze me. Thank you all.
University of Bologna
Department of Biochemistry "G.Moruzzi"
Via Irnerio 48, 40126 Bologna, Italy