> $ sage -ipython > >>> import sage.all > > I've done this in the past several times and each time greatly sped things up.
We did it too several times already in SymPy. > When I'm actually doing real work, research, teaching, etc. this > hugeness is not a wart to me at least in any way at all. It means that > the resources are there to do what I want. Instead of hunting around for, > installing, building, learning new programs, I get work done. To quote > Michael Stoll when he switched from lots of little tools to Magma 10 years > ago: "it is very nice to have everything under one roof". He cares about > getting research done. Period. And could care less about "unix philosophy". > At the end of the day, I tend to agree. It really depends what you want to do. From your prospective (research mathematics), this is exactly what you need. >From my prospective (using SAGE in my own programs), this isn't exactly what I need, but fortnuately, this will improve, when SAGE becomes more famous, and more people like Michael Abshoff are going to join. I am looking forward to a time, when I do in Debian: $ apt-get install sage $ python Python 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Aug 17 2007, 00:51:07) [GCC 4.1.3 20070812 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.2-15)] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> from sage.all import * >>> print x**2 And I could use anything that SAGE wraps. Everything under one hood. Period. > > and we really need a symbolic alternative -- sympy seems just the thing. I > > think sage's symbolic side should be strong enough that we really shouldn't > > have to break out the special polynomial declarations unless you are doing > > something very special purpose. This might require a very very smart > > symbolic engine to detect when it is working with polynomials and use > > polynomial algorithms behind the scenes instead of more generic symbolic > > ones. I think if we could pull that off, then even the number theorists > > might find themselves working with the symbolic expressions. This would be > > a > > huge step towards mathematica level friendliness imo. > > You're right. In fact I already work with symbolic expressions > frequently, when it makes sense to do so. :-) > > But personally my first priority is creating a viable alternative to > the big systems, before > trying to do some sort of open ended research system that's really > hard to write. Agree. > > It is wrong / abusive to call _verify_canonical_coercion_c because that > function is never supposed to fail. You should check that the parents > are the same explicitly and if not pass through to the next case. Agree. That's why I am proposing the fix here (at the end of the message): http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/752742fd202f6868 as opposed to Robert's proposal here: http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/d0aab9c309a3aa29 So if there are no more objections (Robert?) I'll implement my proposal and the patch will be ready. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
