Hello ! > Due to the unfortunate absence of professional programmers to write and review our code
Come on, that is our job. > and of mature professional mathematicians to establish clear strategic decisions for sage, we should actually as a research community be welcoming of diverse (already-coded) ideas, as long as they are not disruptive to other people's research objectives (the burden should be to prove that they disrupt). We are grown ups. If we think at some point that something should be undone, the discussion is on whether it should be undone. Not on whether we are allowed to undo things. We deprecate functions at every release, and that's healthy. > And even if there were, the burden should be for anyone to _improve_ code that is considered useful by them, not remove. I said "remove" because waiting for one year to do something and still say "I will do it later" is not a good sign. Then, I remember saying in one long email that everything in FindStat seemed very cool and useful, but that we had no reason to host their code if it is not useful in Sage. Then, if it is useful in Sage, I believe that it should be made non-intrusive, i.e. the decorator should return the very function it received and not leave anything in between. This is only technical issues, nothing more. But I hate that it takes one year to see it fixed. > In light of this, please reflect on the amount of mathematics you know yourself. I just read your email, and so before you begin your long enumeration let me agree with you : I am an idiot, and I know nothing. I just smiled when I read your "do you know anything about categories", because funnily I am reviewing #16405 right now and wrote a couple of category tickets recently. > One thing is sure: that you feel qualified to comment on it). And clearly I am wrong. Do me a favor, read this and tell me why it is made invalid by the obvious fact that I don't understand anything about categories : https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-combinat-devel/hupt_5776j0/KtbiHpTKXrUJ > It might be that individuals feel that they understand what findstat is doing but are failing to understand the broader context, which might explain why projects like findstat, LMFDB or even sage-combinat have unnecessarily complicated relationships with the sage core itself, and why some of my contributions end up in the LMFDB code and not sage itself. Some individuals like me are bound to miss stuff forever, accept it, the world is filled with us idiots. Okay let's stop this game : all I have against FindStat is the useless methods they add (like .to_partition) and the intrusive decorator. Nothing else. > Also, have you talked to Francoise and the Logilab people at the Edinburgh workshop, people who are professional developing software in the sciences to handle research results? No, I never talked to anybody named "Francoise". I never talked to any "JIm" either. > Do you know about semantic web technologies and things like that, especially as it is being applied to mathematics? Dear God, how have I failed you ? No, no I don't ! > Anyways, even if you don't know about all those things, don't worry: it is actually possible, for someone with an open mind, to learn those things or at least a sufficiently general picture. Bless the Lord. Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-combinat-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
