On Nov 24, 1:07 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 12:10 PM, rjf wrote:
>
>
>
> No one is claiming that there aren't (gross) inefficiencies in the
> system, but I am one of many who subscribe to the belief that most of
> the time completion provides better results than the lack
On Nov 24, 12:37 pm, William Stein wrote:
> > (RJF) For example, claiming great advantages to rewriting working software
> > in the language du jour (currently, Python).
>
> FUD. Sage does *vastly* more than "rewrite working software".
I did not say that was the only thing that Sage does. And
I don't think there is really a question that Matlab is the leader for
signal processing. Sage does include some functionality for it
through scipy's signal module:
http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/signal.html
which has been all I have needed (but I don't do much signal
processing).
-M
On Nov 24, 12:37 pm, William Stein wrote:
> >(RJF) Thus someone doing signal processing calculations will likely choose
> > the system with the best signal processing library.
>
> >(RJF) Is that Sage?
>
>(WS) Is that Maxima?
Unlikely.
Matlab has a popular signal processing library.
http://ww
On Nov 24, 2009, at 12:10 PM, rjf wrote:
> David Kirby's comments on competition stuck in my mind as I was doing
> some errands this morning, and his repeating them suggested to me that
> maybe I should comment again.
>
> For a start, the healthy competition he refers to between Intel and
> AMD. P
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:10 PM, rjf wrote:
> While I am not opposed to competition per se, I am quite doubtful of
> some of the competition proposed here.
> For example, claiming great advantages to rewriting working software
> in the language du jour (currently, Python).
FUD. Sage does *vastly
David Kirby's comments on competition stuck in my mind as I was doing
some errands this morning, and his repeating them suggested to me that
maybe I should comment again.
For a start, the healthy competition he refers to between Intel and
AMD. Perhaps he has not noticed the substantial amount of m
On Nov 24, 1:25 am, Martin Rubey
wrote:
> "Dr. David Kirkby" writes:
>
> > I find it hard to believe Sage will not have a negative impact on the
> > sales of Mathematica, but I certainly hope Sage does not put Wolfram
> > Research out of business. I very much doubt it will either.
>
> I am with y
> I do not think so. There are really big names (RJF, Robert Dodier and
> others) behind Maxima. As I understand from curricula vitae of some
> Sage develepers (E. Burcin, O. Certik, W. Stein, M. Hampton, K. D.
> Crisman, ..), the typical Sage developer is very young. Sage is
> wonderful project,
On Nov 23, 11:01 pm, mhampton wrote:
> I thought that Mark McClure's post on another thread raised some
> interesting issues, and that it was worth responding to, but it was so
> tangential that it deserves a seperate thread:
Thank you to Marshall for a thoughtful response. I agree with just
abo
On Nov 24, 7:25 am, Martin Rubey
wrote:
> I am with your hope (how to say this properly?). At any rate, I think
> its realistic though that sage will put
>
> maxima, fricas (axiom, open-axiom), reduce, giac, etc.
>
> eventually "out of business".
I see this totally different: Sage or any oth
On 24 lis, 07:25, Martin Rubey
wrote:
> "Dr. David Kirkby" writes:
>
> > I find it hard to believe Sage will not have a negative impact on the
> > sales of Mathematica, but I certainly hope Sage does not put Wolfram
> > Research out of business. I very much doubt it will either.
>
> I am with you
12 matches
Mail list logo
