On Dec 10, 8:16 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (replying to all since I'm not sure if everyone is subscribed to sage-devel) > > > > David Vevar wrote: > > Dear all,
Hello, > > > After consulting with professors Stein and Pisanski I'm taking this > > opportunity to draw your attention to project Vega (http://vega.ijp.si/ > > Htmldoc/vinfo.htm). > > > Vega is a project lead by prof. Pisanski at Institute for Mathematics, > > Physics and Mechanics (IMFM:http://www.ijp.si/) in Ljubljana, > > Slovenia. It takes a form of Mathematica package (incl. external > > programs) specializing mostly but not exclusively in Graph theory. > > > Unfortunately, after a vibrant start in the (early) nineties, Vega > > lost most of its momentum. Having once participated in the project, > > and therefore being confident that, in spite of its temporary > > inactivity, Vega still has a great potential, I suggest that the SAGE > > team explore the possibility of including > > (incorporating) it into SAGE. I believe both parties could benefit: > > Vega could gain momentum again and, at the same time, make a > > significant contribution to SAGE. Maybe for a start, after cleaning > > up, it could be bundled with SAGE in it's original Mathematica form > > and later gradually rewritten in sage/python. > > I'm excited about building on the work done by the Vega project. In the > past, I've tried to look at Vega, but I wasn't running Dos/Windows and > it didn't look very active, so I passed over it. However, as I glance > through the functions now, I realize that many of the functions I'd > eventually like to see in Sage are already in Vega. Ok, that is good. > William, can you comment on the possibility of including a Mathematica > package and other external dos programs in Sage? Since some of the Vega > functionality already exists in Sage and the architectures of > Combinatorica and the Sage graph theory/combinatorics modules are > different, it might be a good idea to just gradually rewrite Vega in > python/cython and not try to bundle and interface the Mathematica version. Since Mathematica is non-free it doesn't make sense to include the code in standard Sage. I like the idea of taking the interesting bits and implementing them. More on that below. Obviously one could still build an optional spkg. > > The latest version can be downloaded here:http://vega.ijp.si/latest.zip. > > It contains only Mathematica sources, though. External programs, > > written in C(++) and Pascal, We like C++ code, mainly as libraries, but Pascal isn't supported and I doubt that that will change because the body of useful mathematical Pascal code seems to be rather small. But since the code seems to have been unmaintained for a good decade there might be plenty of issues to fix before it might compile with modern compilers. >> are currently distributed only in binary > > form (still MSDOS executables, I'm afraid) but I think obtaining their > > sources can be arranged. That is very important. >> In fact I know it can, since prof. Pisanski offered his help: > > > "If there is anything that we at IMFM could do, please let me know. I > > can try and get a group of younger colleagues and graduate students > > who can help as well. > > Getting the source code and clarifying the license is probably the next > step. The closest I can find to a license while poking around a bit is > the statement in v5init.m: Yep, that is the most important step. Without proper licensing nobody will touch the code. > (* *) > (* This file is part of Vega 0.5 *) > (* Copyright (C) 1991-1997 by IMFM, Ljubljana *) > (* Imagine a lengthy GNU Copyright message in this place. *) > > or the statement on the websitehttp://vega.ijp.si/Htmldoc/vinfo.htm: > > Project VEGA is maintained by COMOT It is primarily intended for those > who contribute to it, and is free for scientific and teaching > non-commercial purposes. The non-commercial restriction also has to go. It is GPL incompatible anyway. > The help of younger colleagues and graduate students would be very much > appreciated! As a fairly new Sage contributor, I can say that the > environment here is one of the most supportive and happy environments > I've ever seen in an open-source project to beginning contributors. My > guess is that whoever wants to contribute would have an enjoyable time. :) > > I would be very glad if Sage would incorporate a system for dealing > > with combinatorial and geometric configurations, with maps on surfaces > > and with abstract polytopes." > > I'm not sure how much we have already implemented in these areas other > than graph theory. I know there has been talk recently of developing > some systems for working with incidence structures. It would be great if someone familiar with the code could describe in detail what the project does well and where its strengths are. > As for graph theory, there is a page that compares Combinatorica to Sage > athttp://wiki.sagemath.org/CombinatoricaComparethat you might find > interesting. I've been gradually picking functions from the list that > don't exist in Sage and implementing them. > > -Jason Cheers, Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
