On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:53 PM, G B <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think we should build analysis tools. I do think that we should do >> more outreach. > > > Speaking as a noob with a lot of this, I wonder if one way to start would > be to move documentation closer together. Perhaps even interlink a bit. I > generally agree with the division of labor among these different packages, > but I understand where the instinct comes from to make SymPy expand its > role-- its easy to feel like each package is its own island. As I'm trying > to find a way to do something, I need to make a conscious effort to jump to > a different documentation tree on a different site. > > Having a shared hub for what I'd call scientific computing packages might > help me, at least, take in more of whats available and give a better > perspective to what functionality belongs in which package. >
I like this. I recommend that you send this idea to http://numfocus.org/ . This seems like the sort of thing that might interest them. It would be cool to see examples and tutorials that mix and match as well. There is the idea of a set of "Atomic and Composable tools". Each tool is atomic so it does one thing and can't be split apart. Each tool can interact nicely with the others. The desire for atomicity is what pushed my initial response. I think we've done a good job at being composable in theory but we haven't published this. The unix toolset is the common example of atomic and composable. It would be sad if there were only separate tutorials on grep, find, etc... and no tutorials that showed how they could be used together. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. 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/sympy?hl=en.
