[joss-reviews#2974] Paper: further clarify statement of need

[sjvrijn]

Related: openjournals/joss-reviews#2974

Currently, the statement of need centers on other (Python) packages pymoo, pygmo and jMetal not providing a modular interface, and R package MOEADr only doing so in R. However, this doesn't answer the question:

'If MOEADr already exists and provides the desired functionality, why is it not sufficient?'

Some more detailed questions to guide the level of detail for what I think should be in the statement of need:

• Is there a fundamental problem with the MOEADr R package?
• Or is the main goal to bring it's functionality to Python?
  • If so, what are the (significant) benefits over using MOEADr in combination with e.g. rpy2?
  • Or is there a significant difference in support in the wider ecosystem such as benchmark problem implementations?
• Does moead-framework fundamentally improve on MOEADr somehow, e.g. by implementing more modules?
• ...

Just to note: I much prefer Python over R myself, so I think it's perfectly fine if the desire to program in Python is the main reason, but that should be clearly stated and motivated in the paper. Otherwise, (further) development effort might be better spent on creating/improving a Python interface for an existing implementation such as MOEADr.

[geoffreyp]

The paper is updated with the PR #30