[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:34 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> William Stein wrote: >> >> > > I 100% totally and absolutely agree with Tim Daly that computer >> > > algebra is at the handwaving stage. >>

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > William Stein wrote: > > > > I 100% totally and absolutely agree with Tim Daly that computer > > > algebra is at the handwaving stage. > > > As a mathematician concerned with > > > rigour, I am interested to know wha

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

William Stein wrote: > >  I 100% totally and absolutely agree with Tim Daly that computer > >  algebra is at the handwaving stage. > >  As a mathematician concerned with > >  rigour, I am interested to know what SAGE hopes to do about it. > > Nothing.  This is certainly not one of my goals of Sag

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

William, On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM, you wrote: >... > [A lot of interesting observations and recommendations about > how to do software development in Sage.] Everything you wrote in the this email made extremely good sense to me and I think it deserves to be repeated... > You know, I think

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

I think Sage is awesome. I've started using it in my research. I've been using it to teach classes, and I've even forced my students to learn Python (and Linux) in the process. Yes, Sage has lots of bugs, but at least I get to see the code, and if I'm motivated then I can even fix it myself. I

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

On May 1, 2008, at 2:42 PM, William Stein wrote: > Optimistically, perhaps one indirect contribution in this > direction is that Sage being open might make some people > a little more aware > of the extent to which one must never blindly trust the output of > mathematical software. I think havi

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

> > > 2) The way SAGE handles exceptions and special cases when interfacing > > > with some of the underlying packages. > > > > This is a difficult problem. That Sage is able to get any reuse at all > > out of underlying and external packages is already surprising. The > > use of underl

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

On 1 May, 16:32, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >  1) The adequacy of test code to detect corner cases. > > Same here.  I hope people will write more test code.  By the way, doctests > are not the only testing

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [stuff about docs] IMHO the right thing to do regarding documenting algorithms is to write research papers and books, e.g., like Henri Cohen has done. > On the other hand, in the mean time, SAGE has become an enormous > pro

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

On May 1, 3:57 pm, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Tim, > The main focus seems to be on fixing bugs related to failing doctests. I forgot to make a very important point here: Failing doctests clearly show that regression testing works. We now have a little under 55,000 or so input d

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

On May 1, 3:57 pm, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Tim, Hi Bill, > I do have some specific concerns about SAGE: > > 1) The adequacy of test code to detect corner cases. Yes, but we are getting better at it. For example look at Didier passing an empty Matrix into various routines an

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

Hi Tim, Thanks for posting the example. It will be more interesting to look at when it is complete, I note for example that something is missing on line 379, there is a typo on line 394 and so far the implementation essentially only defines the category that you want to work in and the algebraic

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

>My point was that information on branch cuts should either A) be >publicly available or B) preferably available as an export option. >Mathematica and Maple both do A. Perhaps B is the better answer for >open systems. In any event I stand by my point that this is only an >issue because people ha

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

root wrote: > The "canonical example" which is in-plan to write is based on the > paper in src/doc/primesp.spad.pamphlet > > I obtained permission from the authors to use this paper in Axiom as > the basis for a canonical ex

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

>I do believe that computational mathematics needs to become a more >rigorous subject. In fact, I'd like to see a piece of code written by >Tim upholding the standards he is advocating, where someone has "taken >the time", because I would like to compare it to my own code and get >some ideas. > >H

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

My point was that information on branch cuts should either A) be publicly available or B) preferably available as an export option. Mathematica and Maple both do A. Perhaps B is the better answer for open systems. In any event I stand by my point that this is only an issue because people have a

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

I do believe that computational mathematics needs to become a more rigorous subject. In fact, I'd like to see a piece of code written by Tim upholding the standards he is advocating, where someone has "taken the time", because I would like to compare it to my own code and get some ideas. However,

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

>> - It suffers from the "OpenMath" communication issue (e.g. if you >>take an Axiom expression, export it to maple, compute with it, >>and re-import it to Axiom you have violated a lot of type >>assumptions in Axiom, possibly violated branch cut assumptions >>(e.g. acosh), done

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

On May 1, 12:51 am, "Gary Furnish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >   - It suffers from the "OpenMath" communication issue (e.g. if you > >    take an Axiom expression, export it to maple, compute with it, > >    and re-import it to Axiom you have violated a lot of type > >    assumptions in Axiom

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

> - It suffers from the "I can do it better", do-it-yet-again-in-python >syndrome, where it will be discovered that python is too slow >so we need to rewrite it in Cython and do obscure, undocumented, >performance enhancing software hacks. Unfortunately computers live in the physica

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

>But you still haven't told me: where is all this time going to come >from? I can't magically make more time appear. I have other things to >do. It's a damn shame. and, for the record, I vote for MaryAnn. :-) Tim --~--~

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

On Apr 30, 2008, at 6:38 PM, root wrote: > > David, > >>> But we've already had this discussion and it is clear that I'm >>> completely out-in-the-weeds, talking-nonsense, and obviously have >>> no idea how REAL-open-source-projects are done. So lets just leave >>> it where it left off before, w

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:38 PM, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sage is dancing around like it has discovered something new and > wonderful. Yes, I'm certainly pretty excited about the Sage project, especially the many really interesting people involved in it! > But I've been in this busin

[sage-devel] Re: fast vs viable (offline post)

I think that generally new code in sage has been meeting a pretty high standard. I think I am a good test case, since I have never been to a Sage Days (except for the joint meetings in San Diego, when I was too busy to interact a whole lot with other developers), and I often try to figure out how