On Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:01:46 AM UTC+1, Snark wrote:
>
> Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible what
>
> is possible for other complex systems, and huge sets of packages?
>
Put simple: Sage is turing complete, a "video editor" (office package [*],
or whatever) is not.
A bug in such a productivity software results in an immediate error or
something that's plain visible. A wrong calculation is just a number as any
other.
H
[*] i'm aware of scripting languages in office suits and spreadsheets are
some kind of limited visual programming -- so i know this isn't 100% true,
but i hope you get my point.
E.g. in tools like excel {rants e.g. here:
http://www.statisticalengineering.com/Weibull/excel.html } there are known
bugs for statistical functions (at least, years ago). that's exactly the
point where tools like R jump in and try to give you more accurate answers.
it's hard to raise a bar that is already high and hence you have to take
into account all of the parts that build the calculations …
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:01:46 AM UTC+1, Snark wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
> > Even if Sage didn't include Python (say), we would still have to worry
> > about it as a dependency, and "big" would be replaced by "sage has too
> > many dependencies".
>
> I tought I had insisted enough : the spkg would still be there,
> ready to be used. It just wouldn't be used unconditionally.
>
> Nothing broken for those who need everything, and time&size gains for
> the others. Win-win situation.
>
> > We would have to workaround Python bugs, worry
> > about the exact version of Python that is installed, etc., etc.. I'm
> > certain things would only be more complicated, not less -- see any of
> > the video editing programs for Linux for examples of this "dependency
> > hell" in practice. If you think otherwise, make your own version of
> > Sage that doesn't include Python, bzip2, gfortran, etc., and see how
> > it goes.
>
> Sorry, I don't use video editing programs.
>
> I just know that I just have to launch my package manager, choose what
> I want. Correct deps get installed and everything works. Even though
> I'm using the "unstable" debian, breaks are rare.
>
> Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible what
> is possible for other complex systems, and huge sets of packages?
>
> > > (1) when you want to apply a theorem, do you just check for the
> > > hypotheses then go on, or do you re-do the proof down from the
> > > axioms?
> >
> > Neither. This is a false analogy. Sage doesn't do anything like the
> > analogue of redoing proofs "down from the axioms".
>
> It is quite on the contrary a very good analogy : it does rebuild a good
> chunk of my system up from the *minimal* deps, even if many things it
> needs is already there.
>
> Snark on #sagemath
>
>
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:01:46 AM UTC+1, Snark wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
> > Even if Sage didn't include Python (say), we would still have to worry
> > about it as a dependency, and "big" would be replaced by "sage has too
> > many dependencies".
>
> I tought I had insisted enough : the spkg would still be there,
> ready to be used. It just wouldn't be used unconditionally.
>
> Nothing broken for those who need everything, and time&size gains for
> the others. Win-win situation.
>
> > We would have to workaround Python bugs, worry
> > about the exact version of Python that is installed, etc., etc.. I'm
> > certain things would only be more complicated, not less -- see any of
> > the video editing programs for Linux for examples of this "dependency
> > hell" in practice. If you think otherwise, make your own version of
> > Sage that doesn't include Python, bzip2, gfortran, etc., and see how
> > it goes.
>
> Sorry, I don't use video editing programs.
>
> I just know that I just have to launch my package manager, choose what
> I want. Correct deps get installed and everything works. Even though
> I'm using the "unstable" debian, breaks are rare.
>
> Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible what
> is possible for other complex systems, and huge sets of packages?
>
> > > (1) when you want to apply a theorem, do you just check for the
> > > hypotheses then go on, or do you re-do the proof down from the
> > > axioms?
> >
> > Neither. This is a false analogy. Sage doesn't do anything like the
> > analogue of redoing proofs "down from the axioms".
>
> It is quite on the contrary a very good analogy : it does rebuild a good
> chunk of my system up from the *minimal* deps, even if many things it
> needs is already there.
>
> Snark on #sagemath
>
>
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:01:46 AM UTC+1, Snark wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
> > Even if Sage didn't include Python (say), we would still have to worry
> > about it as a dependency, and "big" would be replaced by "sage has too
> > many dependencies".
>
> I tought I had insisted enough : the spkg would still be there,
> ready to be used. It just wouldn't be used unconditionally.
>
> Nothing broken for those who need everything, and time&size gains for
> the others. Win-win situation.
>
> > We would have to workaround Python bugs, worry
> > about the exact version of Python that is installed, etc., etc.. I'm
> > certain things would only be more complicated, not less -- see any of
> > the video editing programs for Linux for examples of this "dependency
> > hell" in practice. If you think otherwise, make your own version of
> > Sage that doesn't include Python, bzip2, gfortran, etc., and see how
> > it goes.
>
> Sorry, I don't use video editing programs.
>
> I just know that I just have to launch my package manager, choose what
> I want. Correct deps get installed and everything works. Even though
> I'm using the "unstable" debian, breaks are rare.
>
> Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible what
> is possible for other complex systems, and huge sets of packages?
>
> > > (1) when you want to apply a theorem, do you just check for the
> > > hypotheses then go on, or do you re-do the proof down from the
> > > axioms?
> >
> > Neither. This is a false analogy. Sage doesn't do anything like the
> > analogue of redoing proofs "down from the axioms".
>
> It is quite on the contrary a very good analogy : it does rebuild a good
> chunk of my system up from the *minimal* deps, even if many things it
> needs is already there.
>
> Snark on #sagemath
>
>
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:01:46 AM UTC+1, Snark wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
> > Even if Sage didn't include Python (say), we would still have to worry
> > about it as a dependency, and "big" would be replaced by "sage has too
> > many dependencies".
>
> I tought I had insisted enough : the spkg would still be there,
> ready to be used. It just wouldn't be used unconditionally.
>
> Nothing broken for those who need everything, and time&size gains for
> the others. Win-win situation.
>
> > We would have to workaround Python bugs, worry
> > about the exact version of Python that is installed, etc., etc.. I'm
> > certain things would only be more complicated, not less -- see any of
> > the video editing programs for Linux for examples of this "dependency
> > hell" in practice. If you think otherwise, make your own version of
> > Sage that doesn't include Python, bzip2, gfortran, etc., and see how
> > it goes.
>
> Sorry, I don't use video editing programs.
>
> I just know that I just have to launch my package manager, choose what
> I want. Correct deps get installed and everything works. Even though
> I'm using the "unstable" debian, breaks are rare.
>
> Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible what
> is possible for other complex systems, and huge sets of packages?
>
> > > (1) when you want to apply a theorem, do you just check for the
> > > hypotheses then go on, or do you re-do the proof down from the
> > > axioms?
> >
> > Neither. This is a false analogy. Sage doesn't do anything like the
> > analogue of redoing proofs "down from the axioms".
>
> It is quite on the contrary a very good analogy : it does rebuild a good
> chunk of my system up from the *minimal* deps, even if many things it
> needs is already there.
>
> Snark on #sagemath
>
>
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:01:46 AM UTC+1, Snark wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
> > Even if Sage didn't include Python (say), we would still have to worry
> > about it as a dependency, and "big" would be replaced by "sage has too
> > many dependencies".
>
> I tought I had insisted enough : the spkg would still be there,
> ready to be used. It just wouldn't be used unconditionally.
>
> Nothing broken for those who need everything, and time&size gains for
> the others. Win-win situation.
>
> > We would have to workaround Python bugs, worry
> > about the exact version of Python that is installed, etc., etc.. I'm
> > certain things would only be more complicated, not less -- see any of
> > the video editing programs for Linux for examples of this "dependency
> > hell" in practice. If you think otherwise, make your own version of
> > Sage that doesn't include Python, bzip2, gfortran, etc., and see how
> > it goes.
>
> Sorry, I don't use video editing programs.
>
> I just know that I just have to launch my package manager, choose what
> I want. Correct deps get installed and everything works. Even though
> I'm using the "unstable" debian, breaks are rare.
>
> Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible what
> is possible for other complex systems, and huge sets of packages?
>
> > > (1) when you want to apply a theorem, do you just check for the
> > > hypotheses then go on, or do you re-do the proof down from the
> > > axioms?
> >
> > Neither. This is a false analogy. Sage doesn't do anything like the
> > analogue of redoing proofs "down from the axioms".
>
> It is quite on the contrary a very good analogy : it does rebuild a good
> chunk of my system up from the *minimal* deps, even if many things it
> needs is already there.
>
> Snark on #sagemath
>
>
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:01:46 AM UTC+1, Snark wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
> > Even if Sage didn't include Python (say), we would still have to worry
> > about it as a dependency, and "big" would be replaced by "sage has too
> > many dependencies".
>
> I tought I had insisted enough : the spkg would still be there,
> ready to be used. It just wouldn't be used unconditionally.
>
> Nothing broken for those who need everything, and time&size gains for
> the others. Win-win situation.
>
> > We would have to workaround Python bugs, worry
> > about the exact version of Python that is installed, etc., etc.. I'm
> > certain things would only be more complicated, not less -- see any of
> > the video editing programs for Linux for examples of this "dependency
> > hell" in practice. If you think otherwise, make your own version of
> > Sage that doesn't include Python, bzip2, gfortran, etc., and see how
> > it goes.
>
> Sorry, I don't use video editing programs.
>
> I just know that I just have to launch my package manager, choose what
> I want. Correct deps get installed and everything works. Even though
> I'm using the "unstable" debian, breaks are rare.
>
> Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible what
> is possible for other complex systems, and huge sets of packages?
>
> > > (1) when you want to apply a theorem, do you just check for the
> > > hypotheses then go on, or do you re-do the proof down from the
> > > axioms?
> >
> > Neither. This is a false analogy. Sage doesn't do anything like the
> > analogue of redoing proofs "down from the axioms".
>
> It is quite on the contrary a very good analogy : it does rebuild a good
> chunk of my system up from the *minimal* deps, even if many things it
> needs is already there.
>
> Snark on #sagemath
>
>
--
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
