On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net>wrote:
> > Marshall Hampton wrote: > > I agree, that doesn't sound good. At the moment, I just want to check > > out the sandpile functionality, so I don't think I will wade in and > > try to improve glpk, or bug the author to do so. > > > > On the positive side, I think I now have packages that install > > correctly, at least on my own mac. They are at: > > > > > > http://www.d.umn.edu/~mhampton/4ti2.p0.spkg<http://www.d.umn.edu/%7Emhampton/4ti2.p0.spkg> > > http://www.d.umn.edu/~mhampton/glpk.p0.spkg<http://www.d.umn.edu/%7Emhampton/glpk.p0.spkg> > > > > i.e. I have overwritten my previous broken versions. > > This is also now trac ticket #6663 (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ > > ticket/6663). > > > > -Marshall > > I'm not a mathematician, don't have a clue what this does, so I am > probably looking at this from a very different point of view to most. > But I don't think it's a good idea to include code that hides warnings. > > Again, it's a personal thing but when I look at web sites, like Wolfram > Research's, which has 42 errors: > > > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.wolfram.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 > > it always makes me wonder how seriously quality is taken. > > In contrast the Sage site has zero errors: > > > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sagemath.org%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.654 > > Mathematicians I've worked worth have always paid a lot of attention to > detail - far more than I think engineers tend to. If someone covers up > their compiler errors, it makes me wonder whether sufficient attention > to detail is applied elsewhere. > > If someone like WRI, Maplesoft etc wanted to try to point out the > disadvantages of Sage, showing how we hide warnings would be like giving > them ammunition to blow us up with. > > I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me, but personally I would > avoid adding things to sage that rely on code that is built like that. > I agree with you. It is difficult to disagree with such a natural technical way to improve quality. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
