On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:43 PM, David Philp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 26/08/2008, at 8:15 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > >>> Is "not extending of Maxima" a concrete policy? I understand that >>> maxima >>> sucks in some circumstances, but it seems quite the beast here. >>> I am quite confused about a lot of the pattern matching >>> discussion. AFAICT, >>> that is the problem for which lisp rocks, and the best way to do it >>> is >> >> I think it's just about getting people to fix it. There are many >> people around who can fix Python/Cython and a little less (I guess) >> who can fix C++ and C. But a lot less who can fix lisp.
As I mentioned before, another big problem is that lisp doesn't manipulate native Python objects efficiently. Python *is* just a C library -- Python and C/C++ play very well together, especially because of Cython. The same is not the case with lisp/maxima. > I think that could change. There must be a few experienced > mathematica users who would happily enough pick up lisp as part of > their transition to sage. Mathematica -> lisp -> sage is surely > easier than mathematica -> python -> sage. In four years not a single such person has ever appeared on sage-devel. > Anyway, it is always better to learn the right tool for the job, than > to rewrite it yourself. [...] Yes, but Maxima is not the right tool for this job. -- william --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
