On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 11:14 AM, dabu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Mar 27, 12:41 pm, Jason Grout <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 03/26/2010 11:40 PM, dabu wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi, >> >> > On Mar 26, 10:00 pm, Minh Nguyen<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 3:47 AM, dabu<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> <SNIP> >> >> >>> It would be somehow more helpful if important sage components like >> >>> simpy and scipy are compatible by default and one does not have to >> >>> play with namespaces. >> >> >> See PEP 20 for a reason to use namespaces: >> >> > The issue is not with namespaces, which is a good programming >> > practice, but with the incompatibility between simpy and scipy. I >> > believe some of these important packages should be integrated under >> > one umbrella. >> >> Are you aware that scipy and sympy are two completely separate projects >> that have little to do with each other? > Thanks, I am aware of that. the sympy and scipy are different project. > But I do not agree that they have little to do with each other. >> It's fine for scipy and for >> sympy to each import a diff function; the function makes sense in each >> package's context. I think we would be overstepping our bounds to >> insist that the scipy folks rename their diff function because some >> other package out there also had a diff function. > > We are not overstepping here , I am sorry if it sounded little off the > line:) From a user prospective it should be made quite clear what my > (our) demands are and to see whether it matches with others. For > example most people who use a CAS system may need some amount of > numerics and vice versa and something integrated like say Mathematica > would be much better to an average user. > > As it is a free system, it is surely upto the developers to decide how > much they want subject themselves to user feedback. > >> However, if you wanted to pursue this, these questions would be >> questions for the respective projects (sympy and scipy). For us, a 3rd >> party integrating both, namespaces is the natural way to access things >> in each package. > > Surely I agree, but somehow sage has a larger user base and these > packages, that is why I posted here to see what the current status. I > also very much agree with last statements. Any way I am quite off > topic now and would not be writing more. >
+1 to Pallab's general remarks above (no comment on his specific beefs with scipy versus sympy semantics). Sage packages scipy and sympy, but what *MATTERS* at the end of the day is the complete experience we provide to users. It is certainly our right (as the Sage project) to change anything we include with Sage, to reshape it, to rethink it, etc. -- William > best, > Pallab >> Thanks, >> >> Jason > > -- > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support > URL: http://www.sagemath.org > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sage-support+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the > words "REMOVE ME" as the subject. > -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
