That sounds like an important point. Definitely creating software and maintaining it are two different tasks that might require different workflows.
El miércoles, 13 de abril de 2016, 11:24:16 (UTC+2), Simon King escribió: > > Hi! > > On 2016-04-13, Jeroen Demeyer <jdem...@cage.ugent.be <javascript:>> > wrote: > > I think the reason that the coding people are moving forward quickly is > > mainly because there is an enthousiastic group just doing stuff. > > Aren't there further examples? IIRC, the matroid code was (or still is?) > developed separately, and then made its way into Sage proper. > > Question to people with computer engineering experience: Shouldn't we > distinguish between *creating* functionality in a modular way (such as: > creating matroid code as an optional package) and *maintaining* it in a > modular way? > > My impression with my group cohomology package seems to suggest to me > that maintaining a separate package is more difficult than creating it > in the first place, and I regret that I didn't start earlier with > binding it more tightly to the Sage code, so that regressions could be > detected and fixed more easily. > > Best regards, > Simon > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
