On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 8:19 PM, root <d...@axiom-developer.org> wrote: >>I don't mean to suggest this could be trivially done by anybody right >>now. I'm talking about feasibility in the sense of several very hard >>weeks work by one of the top 10 Sage developers. >> >>........... >> >>1. Consider "lines of code". How many correct LOC/day does a top 10 >>Sage developer write? On average. A guess. >>2. How many LOC are there in Maxima's code for integration? (easy to >>count) >>3. How many LOC are there in the code that Maxima's integration code >>USES? (not so easy to count -- includes >>pieces of many of the source files like simplification, solve, >>rational manipulation... there is a chart about this, and >>you can also get dependency information from tools that are available >>in some lisp compilers. ) >>4. How many LOC in LISP per LOC in whatever language you choose? 1, >>10, 1/10? >> >>Of course you might actually have to learn how to do this task by >>reading some pretty dense material; PhD dissertations by Bronstein, >>Trager, Davenport, Rothstein, Rioboo, Cherry, ... so that might take, >>oh, a few hours by one of the top 10 Sage developers ? > > Integration in Axiom (and Fricas, which Sage now includes) uses a fair > amount of the algebra. To get an idea of the complexity of the > problem take a look at the algebra graph for Axiom at: > > http://axiom-developer.org/axiom-website/documentation.html#buildorder > > under the Axiom build order link. Each node in the graph is a file of > algebra code (e.g. a python class kind of object) written in a very > high level algebra language (Spad). Edges represent only immediate > dependence from the prior level but each node actually has an > average of about 20 dependencies links so the graph should more likely > have 22000 edges. Maxima has a similar complexity. > > I think there might be a bit of overconfidence in assuming that any > one of the "top 10 Sage developers" is going to reproduce even a > fraction of that complexity in the near term.
That's not what is being discussed. The question is about the technical feasibility of removing lisp/maxima from the core of Sage. >[snip] Moving to Cython will likely regain > the speed at the cost of explicit knowledge of the internal > representation, making the system more fragile and less agile. That doesn't make any sense. >Note > that we're ignoring the fact that the Maxima code has so many more > years of testing and field use than new python code would see. I so wish the years of use that Maxima has seen meant it were nearly bug free. I certainly don't mean to ignore bugs and code quality in this discussion. The rest of your email is interesting but off topic, where I hope the topic of this thread will stay: "technical feasibility of removing lisp/maxima from the core of sage (they will instead be optional)". William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
