> Well, if I had to pick a nasty point to sage I would agree that it's huge-ness > is seriously annoying. The slow import of "sage.all" really kills the > pleasure for writing python programs which you want to use from bash, but I
That's exactly how I want to write Python programs. And I am sure many other users too. And I think SAGE will eventually get there. The speed of import can be cured, by importing things on the fly, etc. etc. > realize that I'm a bit unusual to actually use it that way. I would love > more modularity, but I'm not convinced it's possible. I mean, this huge-ness > is a wart in many ways, but quite frankly I've not seen any other mathematics > package which I would look forward to using for a lifetime of mathematics (at > all levels). I say that statement for mathematica as well as OSS > alternatives (just try writing a mathematica script to call from bash!). I > think the hugeness might just be an acceptable trade-off since making modular > software is much more difficult to make enjoyable to use. Agree. > I am wondering though what kind of support for matrices and polynomials (for > examples) you might envision with sympy. I see that you currently have > support listed for these things, but if it's pure python the sage equivalents > are going to be much faster. It seems that you could gain so much by sharing > these goals with sage. It has a huge advantage to have something lightweight in pure Python, for many purposes. And for many purposes, the speed is enough. For many purposes it isn't. Because SAGE has other good algorithms for polynomials, there's no point of using the slow ones in sympy. As to matrices, for pure numerics, one can use numpy, or some other things that SAGE is using. But for symbolic matrices - I think you can just use Maxima in SAGE. As to gaining - it really depends on the application. > On the flip side though, maxima is a gigantic ill-tempered beast to work with > and we really need a symbolic alternative -- sympy seems just the thing. I > think sage's symbolic side should be strong enough that we really shouldn't > have to break out the special polynomial declarations unless you are doing > something very special purpose. This might require a very very smart > symbolic engine to detect when it is working with polynomials and use > polynomial algorithms behind the scenes instead of more generic symbolic > ones. I think if we could pull that off, then even the number theorists > might find themselves working with the symbolic expressions. This would be a > huge step towards mathematica level friendliness imo. Agree. Those are my goals and I think also of other developers of SAGE. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
