On 2 November 2010 12:49, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > On 11/2/10 6:07 AM, David Kirkby wrote: >> >> If Sage is ever to become a viable alternative to Mathematica, then it >> really needs the features of that program. > > > I think early on, there was a distinction made between focusing on having > parity of features with other programs and having the features users really > care about. The attitude here was that instead of looking at other programs > and saying, "What do they have that we don't have?" we look at the *people* > using those programs and say "What do we not have that you really want?"
Before going to this in any detail, see my second post on a related topic, "Should Sage have a list of priorities, based on its mission statement?" where I elaborate a bit more. > Sage becomes an alternative because it implements the features the people > need (whether or not other programs have those features), not because it has > feature-parity with other programs. Yes, I'm not disagreing - but again I think I covered this in better detail in my other post, which. It might be better to reply to that directly. > You sort of say this too in your post. I just wanted to highlight it. I certainly do not disagree with you. Dave > > Thanks, > > Jason > > > -- > To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to > sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel > URL: http://www.sagemath.org > -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
