On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2011 8:13:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Hart wrote:
>>
>> Ah, it seems that you do not actually want expert mathematicians who
>> are not expert coders to contribute code to Sage.
>
> You are missing the point of this thread; its not a
On Tuesday, April 5, 2011 8:13:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> Ah, it seems that you do not actually want expert mathematicians who
> are not expert coders to contribute code to Sage.
>
You are missing the point of this thread; its not at all about Mike R
tripping over one of the numerous C++
I think that part of the issue here is the difference between the
algorithms/coding them, and all the hoo-ha you have to do to get a
computer to do that fast in compiled languages, headers and whatnot.
I realize those things are important, but they are almost certainly
the last thing that a classic
Ah, it seems that you do not actually want expert mathematicians who
are not expert coders to contribute code to Sage.
Perhaps this could be documented somewhere.
On Apr 2, 4:18 pm, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 2 April 2011 14:20, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> > Please also bear in mind that many "upstream"
On 2 April 2011 18:08, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> I think the key point is that there are several metrics for judging
> code. Some judge code by how many compiler warnings it produces, or
> how standard-abiding it is. Others judge code by clarity of the
> expressed algorithm(s).
It's hard for me t
On Apr 2, 2011, at 06:20 , Bill Hart wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 31, 8:41 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
>> On 3/31/11 2:09 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> +1 to everything you said. Also, I'd like to point out that since many
>> upstream developers lurk on this and other Sage lists, our "colloquial"
>> conversati
On Saturday, April 2, 2011 1:08:51 PM UTC-4, robertwb wrote:
>
> I think the key point is that there are several metrics for judging
> code.
>
While there certainly is some artistic quality to what constitutes
"beautiful code", surely we can agree that code that relies on
implementation details
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 8:18 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 2 April 2011 14:20, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>> Please also bear in mind that many "upstream" developers have put
>> years of their life into research, development of algorithms and
>> coding. Many of them are professional mathematicians, not com
On 2 April 2011 14:20, Bill Hart wrote:
> Please also bear in mind that many "upstream" developers have put
> years of their life into research, development of algorithms and
> coding. Many of them are professional mathematicians, not computer
> scientists or professional programmers. They live a
On Mar 31, 8:41 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 3/31/11 2:09 PM, kcrisman wrote:
> +1 to everything you said. Also, I'd like to point out that since many
> upstream developers lurk on this and other Sage lists, our "colloquial"
> conversations actually are heard by many upstream developers. Even
>
> BTW, what is the full name of the author? SPKG.txt says "Rishikesh", yet
> people here talk of "Risi" and "Mike".
>
Rishikesh is Mike Rubenstein's graduate student. That is his entire
name; Rishi is an abbreviation. Mike is an abbreviation of Michael.
I will suggest to Mike within the next
On 04/ 1/11 09:53 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
+1, to all of the above.
What I was trying to say is that we should focus on getting the (very
sophisticated and useful) code to compile and work again, rather than
complain about the number of compiler warnings it gives. Getting it
into a public rep
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:09 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> And I agree that we should communicate with the author politely. I was
>> addressing the Sage developers that use lcalc, and I think that its
>> allowable to use a more colloquial tone in that case.
>
> I would submit that we should be as poli
On Thursday, March 31, 2011 3:09:38 PM UTC-4, kcrisman wrote:
>
> I realize that not everyone will agree on what
> acronyms/cuss words are appropriate for this forum
In the context of programming, I think of WTF mostly as
http://thedailywtf.com. In its own humorous ways, it has a lot to teach
On 3/31/11 2:09 PM, kcrisman wrote:
And I agree that we should communicate with the author politely. I was
addressing the Sage developers that use lcalc, and I think that its
allowable to use a more colloquial tone in that case.
I would submit that we should be as polite as possible whenever
> And I agree that we should communicate with the author politely. I was
> addressing the Sage developers that use lcalc, and I think that its
> allowable to use a more colloquial tone in that case.
I would submit that we should be as polite as possible whenever
discussing component pieces of Sag
16 matches
Mail list logo
