Hi,
> But what if one of the packages we use is discontinued for some > reason? we will have to switch to another. So as Tim has pointed out, > we should take careful decisions when we choose these additional > libraries Right. This is the case. But there are some big old players around that (hopefully) will stay for some more time. F.e. I don't think GMP or eigen will become discontinued anytime soon. > But when it comes to Symbolic manipulation, I feel that it will be > better to have our own implementation which perhaps perform better > (if we design it well) than the current libraries in use. Well, that is true under the condition that the own implementation has some real advantages, be it speed, memory consumption or whatever. In that case why even depend on another library? OTOH if we provide nothing but a much slower, less efficient replacement for the external library, then why develop it at all? Now it depends on which of these two cases is the "default" clause. I don't think it's the first one as f.e. beating flint would be highly non trivial if even possible. There is a reason why they invested years into the development. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying CSympy can not achieve to be the leader. It probably can, but not in all domains of math and not after such a short period of development. I just don't think avoiding dependencies to well known libraries and widely used libraries is worth the time. Anyway, don't get distracted by my comments. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/5326389c.491a0f0a.45fb.254cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN%40gmr-mx.google.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
