Lack of integration is not a showstopper. One can still call maxima for that.
Michel On Jun 9, 10:27 pm, "Joel B. Mohler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm curious if GiNaC has been evaluated for use in SAGE as an alternate > symbolic engine.http://www.ginac.de/ > And a nice quick comparison to > alternatives:http://www.ginac.de/tutorial/A-Comparison-With-Other-CAS.html#A-Compa... > > It seems like it really fits in well with the philosophy of the new symbolic > calculus support, but I don't think it's anywhere close to featureful enough > to replace maxima. However, being a C++ library, it should be ideally > embeddable. The most obvious missing ability is integration, but > differentiation and series expansion appear to be supported. > > Disclaimer: I've not used GiNaC at all, but I've been impressed with the > philosophy and design of the project for awhile now. I certainly don't know > anything about it's speed or robustness. The tutorial appears well done and > has some examples which imply a fair bit of thought has gone into things. > > -- > Joel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
