thanks for your comments :) I think you all are right... :) On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > #include "0.014 e" > > On Aug 25, 2008, at 3:17 PM, ahmet alper parker wrote: > > > Hi all, > > I am not a computer scientist and nor I have much experience like > > you. So my > > question may not be too much meaningful, but I want to ask it :) > > All I see > > in the opensource industry that people do many good programs, but > > most of > > them are some duplicate and much of them are not too much > > functional and > > promising ones. So, I think bringing the same goaled projects under > > same > > umbrella is according to my opinion very crucial. And as I see (if I > > understand correct, please correct me if I am wrong) all the > > programs are > > written in different languages and they do not fully communicate > > each other > > perfectly. So people need to reimplement some of the codes which is > > time > > consuming and tedious. So, can't someone develop a new programming > > language > > that could interact all the properties of the most widely used > > languages? > > Again sorry if the question is not meaningful :) > > It's always tempting to consider a new language, and a complete > rewrite of a major system, but the reality can be pretty harsh. I > think it's tantamount to saying "the highway system in the U.S. is > pretty bad; let's start over and do it right". The dislocation, > startup costs, and general headaches that come with this idea are > overwhelming. > > No one would seriously consider rebuilding a major highway system, > or, say, New York City, from the ground up. The associated problems > tend to be obvious, so the subject rarely comes up. > > Software seems to be "easy", so rebuilding can appear easy, but, if > the system is large and complex, as is Sage or a new language, the > issues are similar to the "hardware" situation. > > We have several languages right now that are quite useful and more > than adequate for the needs of Sage (Python and C, in particular). > As Mike says, the better solution is to make the pieces play together > well (and, of course, to manage the development so that it doesn't > get out of hand :-}). > > Justin > > -- > Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large > Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds > -------- > If you're not confused, > You're not paying attention > -------- > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
