This is to close this poll properly.
The clearly expressed opinions are
- in favor of making three.js the default: 6 (8 if one adds mine as well as
that of Dima, who positively reviewed the ticket)
- in favor of keeping Jmol as the default: 0
Consequently, the branch of the ticket implementing
+1 to make threejs the default viewer.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web
Le lundi 23 septembre 2019 13:51:23 UTC+2, Eric Gourgoulhon a écrit :
>
> - 3d plots rendered with three.js can be publicly shared via
> nbviewer.jupyter.org, contrary to those rendered with Jmol, which
> appear as
> blank spaces, cf. this test notebook:
>
>
+1 for threejs as default.
David
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 7:24 PM Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> +1 for making the default threejs.
>
> Best,
> Travis
>
> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 9:51:23 PM UTC+10, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
>>
>> Dear Sage-dev,
>>
>> This is a poll to make three.js
+1 for making the default threejs.
Best,
Travis
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 9:51:23 PM UTC+10, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
>
> Dear Sage-dev,
>
> This is a poll to make three.js (https://threejs.org/) the default 3d
> viewer
> in Sage, in replacement of Jmol
Le lundi 23 septembre 2019 13:51:23 UTC+2, Eric Gourgoulhon a écrit :
> Indeed, thanks to the work of Paul Masson, the three.js 3d viewer is doing
> a
> very good job in displaying Sage 3d plots, as you can see in these examples
> taken from Sage reference's manual:
>
>
Le lundi 23 septembre 2019 21:41:55 UTC+2, Thierry (sage-googlesucks@xxx) a
écrit :
>
>
> Also, the java issue is now fixed, which also means that jmol is still
> maintained.
>
>
Yes. To be 100% clear: this poll is not about deprecating Jmol, but about
making three.js the default.
Eric.
--
Le lundi 23 septembre 2019 14:53:32 UTC+2, Emmanuel Charpentier a écrit :
>
>
>
>- The "minor transparency issues" he mentions may deprive the
>resulting plot of part of its mathematical meaning (for example, the plot
>of a sphere and a cone can curently clobber the display of the
+1 for threejs
I tried to compare the two: in a single Jupyter notebook, I plotted the
same function with both viewers. threejs produced the plot faster, and it
was snappier when rotating, zooming, etc. (This is with both Firefox and
Safari on OS X.) Same from the command-line: the threejs
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 07:32:48AM -0700, kcrisman wrote:
> > That said, I support the idea of the switch of defaults (if only because
> > of spite against Java ;-).
> >>
> Though I believe we mostly use Jmol in its jsmol form in the notebooks, for
> what it's worth :-) Nonetheless having a
> That said, I support the idea of the switch of defaults (if only because
> of spite against Java ;-).
>>
>>
>>
Though I believe we mostly use Jmol in its jsmol form in the notebooks, for
what it's worth :-) Nonetheless having a fully functional threejs is great
news too.
--
You received
Eric quite eloquently made the case for threejs. I tend to agree with him
on most of the points. However, a couple points should be complemented:
- The "minor transparency issues" he mentions may deprive the resulting
plot of part of its mathematical meaning (for example, the plot of a
12 matches
Mail list logo
