You asked how you failed me. Well, I know for a fact that your behaviour on
the list has put off people from contributing to sage. Certainly me, and
others who could have contributed indirectly to my research projects. So
that's how you have failed me, since you ask. But that's something I have
tolerated for a couple years now. The reason for my email is different: if
your attitude persists, it is likely to derail what I am trying to do now
along the same lines, when it is actually starting.
One option is to truly explain to you what it is that I am trying to do. At
this point, you are approximately 3 PhD thesis, 7-8 or so research papers
and a good 15 talks (but they are recorded) behind in terms of reading, if
you want the background material. Yet you send me to yet another thread
that I have already read (and participated in). I am pretty sure this is
not the right way for you to proceed.
Also, your ticket's description is a hodgepodge of one precise
("Graph.to_partition is very badly named") and two large grievances ("only
there for findstat", "find_stat, a project distinct from Sage"). I have not
made up my mind on the precise, but I know I disagree with the two large
grievances, and am more informed than you there.
I like Vincent's approach better than either of ours. Why don't we both
change tone and try to contribute constructively in "his" thread? We can
keep the negativity here if you need to interact that way with someone, and
bring the positive to that other thread.
Paul
PS: Francoise == Francoise Genova, the astronomer who was invited in
Edinburgh.
Paul-Olivier Dehaye
SNF Professor of Mathematics
University of Zurich
skype: lokami_lokami (preferred)
phone: +41 76 407 57 96
chat: [email protected]
twitter: podehaye
freenode irc: pdehaye
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Nathann Cohen <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hello !
>
>
> > Due to the unfortunate absence of professional programmers to write and
> review our code
>
> Come on, that is our job.
>
>
> > and of mature professional mathematicians to establish clear strategic
> decisions for sage, we should actually as a research community be welcoming
> of diverse (already-coded) ideas, as long as they are not disruptive to
> other people's research objectives (the burden should be to prove that they
> disrupt).
>
> We are grown ups. If we think at some point that something should be
> undone, the discussion is on whether it should be undone. Not on whether we
> are allowed to undo things. We deprecate functions at every release, and
> that's healthy.
>
>
> > And even if there were, the burden should be for anyone to _improve_
> code that is considered useful by them, not remove.
>
> I said "remove" because waiting for one year to do something and still say
> "I will do it later" is not a good sign. Then, I remember saying in one
> long email that everything in FindStat seemed very cool and useful, but
> that we had no reason to host their code if it is not useful in Sage.
>
> Then, if it is useful in Sage, I believe that it should be made
> non-intrusive, i.e. the decorator should return the very function it
> received and not leave anything in between.
>
> This is only technical issues, nothing more. But I hate that it takes one
> year to see it fixed.
>
>
> > In light of this, please reflect on the amount of mathematics you know
> yourself.
>
> I just read your email, and so before you begin your long enumeration let
> me agree with you : I am an idiot, and I know nothing.
>
> I just smiled when I read your "do you know anything about categories",
> because funnily I am reviewing #16405 right now and wrote a couple of
> category tickets recently.
>
>
> > One thing is sure: that you feel qualified to comment on it).
>
> And clearly I am wrong. Do me a favor, read this and tell me why it is
> made invalid by the obvious fact that I don't understand anything about
> categories :
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-combinat-devel/hupt_5776j0/KtbiHpTKXrUJ
>
>
> > It might be that individuals feel that they understand what findstat is
> doing but are failing to understand the broader context, which might
> explain why projects like findstat, LMFDB or even sage-combinat have
> unnecessarily complicated relationships with the sage core itself, and why
> some of my contributions end up in the LMFDB code and not sage itself.
>
> Some individuals like me are bound to miss stuff forever, accept it, the
> world is filled with us idiots.
>
> Okay let's stop this game : all I have against FindStat is the useless
> methods they add (like .to_partition) and the intrusive decorator. Nothing
> else.
>
> > Also, have you talked to Francoise and the Logilab people at the
> Edinburgh workshop, people who are professional developing software in the
> sciences to handle research results?
>
> No, I never talked to anybody named "Francoise". I never talked to any
> "JIm" either.
>
> > Do you know about semantic web technologies and things like that,
> especially as it is being applied to mathematics?
>
> Dear God, how have I failed you ? No, no I don't !
>
>
> > Anyways, even if you don't know about all those things, don't worry: it
> is actually possible, for someone with an open mind, to learn those things
> or at least a sufficiently general picture.
>
> Bless the Lord.
>
> Nathann
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-combinat-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
