You all make good points. Certainly more documentation for applied stuff is called for, and I really like the idea of a configuration command to avert having to maintain a separate version. Didn't even think of that!
As regards size, I do think that it would be an important factor. I am much more likely to DOWNLOAD and try out a program if it were, say, 80 Mb than half a Gb. Similarly, I am more likely to try out a 10 Mb than a 70 Mb download. It's all about acquiring a bigger audience in the applied fields. There is certainly the impression out there that Sage is MAINLY a CAS system (as opposed to a numerical system), and more geared towards pure mathematicians than engineers, physicists, and applied scientists. A separate and clear way to configure or to download an engineering version (say through a separate webpage), that is well advertised, would go a long way in helping Sage as a whole. Just my humble opinion. Hazem On Mar 23, 4:20 pm, Tim Lahey <tim.la...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Robert Bradshaw > > > > > > <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > > > One question I have is (1) how dropping omitting things would make it > > easier for engineers and (2) if there are packages that are high > > enough quality and useful for engineers, why having them would hurt > > having them distributed with the main Sage. Is half a GB "too big" > > for the modern engineer's computer? > > > I think more useful would be a tutorial (or several) written > > specifically from an engineering perspective, and if you think the > > current environment is lacking, it would be good to implement a top- > > level command that would pre-define a bunch of functions and > > variables useful for engineers (and could even go install optional > > packages if they're not present). I just see this being way more > > useful (and lots easier) than shipping a separate version of Sage, > > and saying "oh, in this version, do this, and in that version do > > that, and you can't do this in this version..." > > > - Robert > > I'm an engineer and I certainly don't want a separate version. Like > I said earlier, what's needed is > > a) examples > b) consistent conversion/coercion between types > > To clarify, there are a number of high quality polynomial packages > in Sage, but they're kind of isolated. I'd like to be able to use those > routines on symbolic expression polynomials and then continue > with the resulting symbolic expression. Also, there is: > c) Improved support for Pynac so one can call non-Pynac routines > using expressions defined using Pynac (e.g., Maxima integration). > > Cheers, > > Tim.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
