On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:11 PM, rjf <fate...@gmail.com> wrote: > If Wolfram said that he didn't show internal code because you were too > stupid to do anything with it, that might be insulting. > Even if it were true for the generic "you", it would be insulting for > some people. > > If he said that he didn't show internal code because it would be (a) > an added expense or (b) a loss of proprietary information, then that > would be no more insulting than for most commercial programs.
In the video that started this discussion, Wolfram addresses at length why they don't include code. You should watch it. The short summary is that he believes that they did used to include code (during the early days of Mathematica) and "nobody looked at it" (exact quote from the video). In short, he argues that they do not include code for Mathematica simply because people do not use or look at it (in his opinion). In fact, he says that he was frustrated that they put a lot of work into making the source code easy to view, but people didn't appreciate it. I'm just summarizing what he actually said, not trying to guess his intentions or put words in his mouth. > As for finding bugs by reading code: How do you assure that your > "verification" by reading code has > found all the bugs? You don't. It's just a fact that many people have observed that reading code frequently results in finding bugs. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
