Thanks for the article -- I agree that it should end up somewhere easily accessible for people who are sage-curious. Here are some things I noticed, which of course you're free to ignore :)
* The phrase "..at least.." rubs me the wrong way in the two places you've used it (describing the many bugs listed on Trac, and describing how you can shoot yourself in the foot with Cython). To my eyes, it reads as an implicit confession that these are weaknesses, not strengths of Sage. I bet you didn't mean it that way! * The warning about overflow in the middle of page 5 interrupts the train of thought in that section, and seems especially out of place since you address overflow later. Maybe that warning should be removed or moved to a footnote. * In the second paragraph of section 3, you use \emph (or \textit or something) for "distribuion", "including Python", and "interface". Of these three, I think the first and third are aligned with the point of the paragraph, but the second is tangential and therefore distracting. One way to reorganize that sentence without the \emph might be "The download of Sage contains all dependencies required for the normal functioning of Sage, including Python itself." * The paragraph at the end of page 5, beginning of page 6 "Much of the work that hundreds of Sage developers does . . ." seems weaker than the rest of the article. I think some thorough rewriting is needed there. On Aug 30, 12:51 am, William Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm going to remove that graphic from the paper, since it seems to > annoy too many people. Also, I don't have a good pdf version of it > (only png). It would be really cool to have a canonical high > quality graphic along those lines though, for the Sage website, etc. That's a real shame, but I can understand not wanting to be drawn into a long process of community graphic designing. Hopefully this will prompt someone else to put some work into it. For that person, I have a couple of suggestions: 1. it's redundant to list names like "Singular" and "Gap" when they can be clearly read from the images. 2. The diagram *looks* complete because the contributing programs make a complete circle -- leaving 1/4 or 1/3 of the circle open might be a way to visually communicate that this is only a partial list. Thanks again, Niles -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
