On Jul 25, 1:19 pm, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu>
wrote:
>... snip...
>
> >(RJF) 2. The reason for the recommended choice of language is to avoid
> > languages with "long tool chains".
>
> (RB) I don't think this was the primary motive--qualities like easy to
> learn, easy to read, widely used, lots of libraries, easy integration
> with the massive number of open C and C++ math libraries already out
> there, fast enough (and easy to make fast, e.g. via Cython/Pyrex)
> were more important concerns.
Those may be your reasons to use Python, but the paragraph from the
document I was referring to said,
in its entirety,
"Do you develop in an uncommon programming language, requiring
learning
a new language and the installation of a large number of packages?
Products developed in languages other than C, C++, C#, Java, Python,
Perl and
Ruby generally require the developer to install an entire toolchain
which they would
not otherwise have on their computer. "
It seems to me that he omits the primary decision point for me, which
is
that a good criterion for choosing a programming language is that it
should
be appropriate for the task at hand. For some people, computing speed
is
paramount; for others, compactness, speed of development, .... .
My belief is that Lisp is easy enough to learn, and someone who cannot
learn it quickly is unlikely to be highly productive in any
programming language.
For people who want to create programs but do not wish to program --
they can
patch together libraries in a graphical IDE. These are destined to
not be core
developers of a computer algebra system.
>
... snip...
>
> > (RJF) 3. As I've indicated previously, the mission statement is, in my view,
> > not clear. The phrase "viable free open source alternative" is too
> > vague. What is a viable alternative ?
>
> There's a lot of room for interpretation,
Glad you agree with me.
> (RB) but in my mind, it means
> you don't ever find yourself in a situation where you need the above
> because what Sage provides just isn't good enough.
So it depends on your situation.
>
> >(RB) How does this goal differ from Maxima, Axiom, Reduce, Jacal, ... or
> > for that matter, Octave?
>
> Probably in comprehensiveness.
So your situation requires comprehensiveness?
>Maxima and Reduce, as far as I know,
> never plan on doing number theory computations.
Maybe you should look at the Maxima system's file "numth" which
provides various number theory functions.
As far as sophistication, I note that it allows for accessing some
database of primes, when run on a Lisp Machine or a PDP-10. This
might have been a good idea when computers were slower and memory was
smaller.
Given that the basic tools of arbitrary precision integer arithmetic
are available in any Common Lisp,
it is not surprising that other people have written programs in Lisp
for number theory. Google cites
23,800 hits for "number theory"+Lisp. Probably many of these programs
can be read directly into Maxima.
Some lisps use the same integer arithmetic used by Sage (GMP). I've
had students write various elliptic curve
programs using lisp.
Numth.lisp may not be especially comprehensive, but I've never found
myself in a situation where I needed a number theory functionality
other than what was there. I think Axiom may have more number theory
stuff.
>(RB) Octave only wants to
> be an alternative to Matlab,
Many people find Matlab to be an entirely satisfactory alternative to
Mathematica, so I understand.
> (RB) but doesn't care about what Magma can
> do. I've never heard of Jacal, but it mostly seems to be focused on
> the computer algebra side of things.
>
> >(RJF) Is Maxima a viable free open source alternative?
>
> (RB) It certainly doesn't do everything the M*s do. (It doesn't want to.)
I have never seen a statement to the effect of "Maxima developers do
not want to provide facilties for mathematical computation X". If
someone somewhere wants to program Maxima to do X, there are no
particular barriers.
(I suppose that if your plan was to do something illegal, there might
be barriers, but they would be the same for Sage.)
>(RB) To my understanding, it's the most complete contender for the
> computer algebra stuff though.
Contender for being a viable alternative to Mathematica/Maple, or a
viable alternative to Sage :)
>
> > Would it be one if it were written in Python?
>
> No, but it would be easier to use from Sage :).
If Sage were written in Lisp, it would be easier to use Maxima from
it.
>
>
>
> > I think that your goal is really to build the most inclusive darn
> > "computer algebra system" you can, within your own self-imposed
> > restrictions regarding languages, licensing, distribution,
> > bootstrapping, shared responsibility, and especially the use of
> > externally-provided free modules.
>
>(RB) Sounds good to me.
I have no objection to a clarification of the mission statement.
I was kind of thinking along the lines of
"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like math."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Smalley
RJF
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
