On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <[email protected]> wrote: > > OK. As a digression, I think it is easy to get the wrong impression of > Sage that it is for "symbolics" vs. "computations". The reality is that > the symbolics has been one of the *weaker* aspects of Sage (though > steadily improving) -- the strong aspect is computations, but with > elements that NumPy doesn't handle efficiently: Arbitrary size integer > and rationals, polynomials (or vectors of their coefficients if you wish > -- just numbers, not symbols), and so on. > > So the Sage design is very much about computation, it is just that the > standard floating point hasn't got all that much attention. >
Good to know, Dag, thanks for the "digression." :-) DG _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
