>> I didn't find NTL that easy to use. Perhaps it depends on the code >> style of the reader and writer. I had a look at singular 2 years ago, >> and I did not find it easy at all (and it was not available as a >> library anyway). >> I didn't look at ginac recently, but I did 8 years ago when I started >> giac. At the beginning giac was based over ginac, I first wrote a >> polynomial library extension with ginac since it had (and still does >> not have stable) factorization code. Then I decided to abandon ginac, >> since I didn't like to use cln and I could not access easily to the >> underlying symbolic representation for the conversions. >> Maybe it's >> because I do not really master C++, but I find much easier to have >> union and explicit type information in a structure like giac::gen. > > > That's interesting, since the first thing I did with Ginac over > the last 10 days was completely replace all use by Ginac > of cln by use of PyObject*'s, which are more like giac::gen, > I guess. > > Incidentally, I invested a significant amount of time systematically learning > C++ when I was an undergrad computer science major, so you're > right that this likely affects my perspective.
This is indeed interesting. If you say that ginac is nicely written, then I really should consider myself an education in C++ (as btw the ginac developers told me!). :) And I will do it and educate myself. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
