First of all, I think that such a page put at a prominent place (as the entry-page for what is now the Tour, perhaps?) will be a good selling point. You need to hook people before they have read pages of text, because otherwise most of them will already have continued on.
> David Kirkby wrote > There are two separate issues > > 1) The interface language > > 2) What the source code is written in. This is very true and a big issue! Maybe enough so to deserve having two info boxes on this suggested "Why Sage"-page. I don't think that Python is the perfect language to write mathematics software with; I would definitely vote on a much more functional language here, e.g. OCaml or maybe even Haskell. However, this would cut out so many potential developers, and from this viewpoint, it is a bad choice for a large-scale open source project like Sage. Python has many merits like it is easy to learn and has little syntax. Just trying to imagine writing mathematics algorithms in Java makes my stomach turn; soo many type declarations and soo many interfaces, all having to be explicitly named and imported, instead of just "going with the flow" in the duck-typing of Python (of course, preferably using the type inference of functional languages, but oh well). The bad side is then no static validation of anything (like type-checking and only invoking declared methods and such), which makes it so much more important to reread, test, double-test, auto-test and re-test all code -- all the time. But as long as the developers succeed in doing this well, the users won't see it too much (it makes me worried for whether there might be a sort of upper limit on how big Sage can grow while still being stable, though). But I digress; my point is that Python IS a selling point _both_ as the underlying interpreter language (which is so many leagues ahead of anything in the Ma*-software, simply because of a well-thought, coherent syntax and standard library) and as the (main?) development language. The first draws in users who care about ease of programming (advanced users, teachers and potential developers. I always hated Maple for its unsystematic syntax and Matlab for its happy-go-lucky interpreter), and the second thing makes it easier for a user to transition into being a developer. I personally don't know Cython yet, but if a feature or a bug I was interested in came up, I would spend a weekend learning it so I could develop with it on Sage; however, I might not have cared about learning Cython when I was "only" a Sage user in the first place. Oh yeah, and Eviatar, I just can't get over the fully committed geekyness of posting the link as ASCII binary X-D That's just plain cool. Johan On Nov 13, 11:48 am, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > On 12 November 2010 18:18, rjf <fate...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 12, 8:46 am, "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net> > >> I think you have a big bias against python and towards lisp. > > > My view is that there has been excessive boosterism for Python, > > I agree with you there. > > > asserting that > > it is the solution to some important issues in building a system that > > is supposed > > to displace Mathematica, Maple, Magma, (Maxima?). > > I don't think anyone believes it will displace those languages. > > > While Python may > > have > > some merit in some situations, the case being made for it for Sage is > > weak, > > Given it's your opinion the case for Python is week, what would have > been best as a user interface language for users? > > I can think of a few possibilities worth consideration myself. > > 1) Create an entirely new language. > 2) Python > 3) Maxima > 4) A Mathematica like interface > 5) A MATLAB like interface > 6) A Maple-like interface > 7) A Magma-like interface > 8) Lisp > 9) Q - > seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_%28equational_programming_language%29 > 10) Purehttp://code.google.com/p/pure-lang/is another possibility, > but that did not exist until 2008, but is based on Q, which existed > prior to Sage > > None seem perfect to me. > > Given the basic rationale of Sage is to "glue" various bits of code > together, what in your opinion would have been the best language to > glue them together? > > > which is why I find some bizarre enjoyment in tweaking people who make > > these claims. > > You certainly get some enjoyment out of winding people up. I wish you > would spend a bit more time contributing practical information though. > You have helped me, and you have helped others too. You almost > certainly know more about computer algebra systems than any Sage > developer. > > A bit less time "tweaking people" and a bit more time "tweaking" the > Sage source code would be nice! > > I'd also have a bit more respect for your opinions if you actually > tried Sage. It would give you a chance to point out even more > shortcomings, which I think you would enjoy. > > > > > Like so many people know it. (Why not use Java? or PHP?) > > Like it is slow but that's OK, you can use Cython (or something else > > that is not Python). > > Like it runs everywhere (but if Guido does X, Y, or Z, we can't use > > the new version) > > Like it is my favorite language (of the one or two I know). > > Like it has a natural math syntax (contradicted by almost all > > examples). > > >>This comes out in a > >> lot of what you say. I would think users of Mathematica consider they > >> write in > >> Mathematica, though the underlying code is probably C, C++, perhaps even > >> Lisp in > >> many cases. > > > Everyone writes in binary, in underlying code. > > Yes, but using a hex editor and creating binary directly is not a very > practical way of developing software. > > > More to the point, I think the big selling point of Mathematica > > initially and maybe even now, > > is presentation of graphics, plotting, etc. For which there are > > actually much fancier > > programs. But Wolfram (or whoever designed the graphics) made a nice > > cut between > > complexity and simplicity. > > Steven Wolfram is no fool. He is a winner of the MacArthur Fellowship > (nicknamed the Genius Award) which is currently valued at $500,000 He > is a very bright guy, and loves to let people know it. > > As you say, there are better plotting programs than Mathematica. I > forget the one I used to use, but it was closed-source and very good. > But Mathematica does a pretty decent job of it too. What Wolfram did > well with Mathematica was to combine a wide range of maths tools into > one product and to integrate them well. > > But unlike MATLAB, I'm not convinced Mathematica has wide use outside > universities. Sure some companies use it, particularly in the > financial sector, but I don't think there's much use of it in > industry. I base that on my experience as a late 40's > engineer/scientist who has worked in a number of commercial companies, > along with results from job searches. > > > RJF > > Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
