astropy VS WeasyPrint

Astropy [0] lives at the heart of most work. It has a Python interface, often backed by Fortran and C++ extension modules. If you use Astropy, you're indirectly using libraries like ERFA [6] and cfitsio [7] which are in C/Fortran.

I personally end up doing a lot of work that uses the HEALPix sky tesselation, so I use healpy [2] as well.

Openorb is perhaps a good example of a pure-Fortran package that I use quite. frequently for orbit propagation [3].

In C, there's Rebound [4] (for N-body simulations) and ASSIST [5] (which extends Rebound to use JPL's pre-calculated positions of major perturbers, and expands the force model to account for general relativity).

There are many more, these are just ones that come to mind from frequent usage in the last few months.

[0] https://www.astropy.org/

Users interested in a broader range of astronomical tools beyond coordinate transformations may be interested in https://www.astropy.org/ and its affiliated packages.

I'm working on a pure Rust approximation of astropy. Up til now, I was able to recreate the intent by looking at an external API, but I'm moving on to functionality that I don't understand enough to implement without basically copying the code. Astropy uses the BSD-3 license, and it wraps the ERFA library which uses a custom license. My project currently uses the MIT license. My PR is here - my question is have I attributed everything correctly, or is there anything I need to change for everything to be above-board?

For folks who might be interested in astronomical calculations but who don't want to roll their own library, astropy (https://www.astropy.org/) is widely used by professional astronomers.

I agree with the other commenter. Check out their github. If you’re looking to build your skills long term (and have some experience with python) it’s worth checking out astropy and their fits file handling routines.

Is there a reason you didn't consider something like Weasyprint?

https://weasyprint.org

I've gone through a number of systems to convert CV's, business cards, and other docs and it hasn't let me down yet.

You don't _have_ to use a browser. I had very good results with Weasyprint [0]. And there's also PrinceXML [1] if you're willing to pay.

[0]: https://weasyprint.org/

Thanks for your answer! I imagined you would be using PrinceXML behind the scenes since that is probably the gold standard in HTML+CSS rendering.

The only open source alternative I know of is WeasyPrint at https://weasyprint.org/. I'm not sure how well it fares against PrinceXML, though.

And thanks for the pointer to Taffy - I didn't know it before!

Flexbox support has been [included][1] since 2018, although my use case was the prototypical one - a single row w/ 3 columns - so YMMV with how it handles more complex layouts.

[1]: https://github.com/Kozea/WeasyPrint/pull/579

Performance is not the strength of WeasyPrint, meaning that heavy HTML files will increase generation time. You should always compress images before attaching them, as they are not compressed by default. Generating a 50-page-long PDF may take up to a minute in extreme cases, although multi-page documents generated on my project take fewer than 2 seconds to generate.

For Python there is Weasyprint: you prepare the invoice as an HTML document, and Weasyprint turns it into a PDF

https://weasyprint.org/

Well yes, but you can implement HTML+CSS. WeasyPrint did from scratch, and independent implementations of HTML+CSS are considerably more numerous than HTML+CSS+JS.

In a recent project I used https://github.com/Kozea/WeasyPrint/ it is written in python, so you will need to use it like so:

You should maybe check out weasyprint. https://weasyprint.org/