Why does anyone rewrite code that apparently already exists? For myself, I can say this: Sometimes I don't understand other people's code. It is too elaborate, too general, uses extra layers of technology, is in a programming language I am uncomfortable with. Maybe some other reasons.
Recently I decided to try "skip lists" as a data structure. Using Lisp. I found several packages. I decided not to use them and wrote my own 2-page version. I understand my own program. It doesn't do more than I need. This apparently happens with other people. The real problem I see with Sage rewriting is that duplicating the imported capabilities (or a subset of them) is not progress. That is, rewriting Maxima in python may be fun, technologically helpful if you want everything in python, maybe making nice user interfaces to it .... but is not progress in the sense of expanding the horizons of what a CAS can compute. Worse, it is likely to be less capable than Maxima (or ...), since there may be subtleties that will be missed. Even worse, in my opinion, it may adopt the same design decisions as Maxima, including the ERRONEOUS ones, by default. For example, I have repeatedly pointed out the difficulties of dealing with assumptions (in Macsyma, Mathematica, Maple). Duplicating these systems will duplicate the difficulties. RJF --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
