>>Pursuing a grand program involving large test >>suites is of course very valuable, but it is a much different than >>the main goal of the Sage project, and it somewhat ignores the >>dynamic nature of real people and their needs. >> >> ... > > I believe you sidestepped the question. My point is that Sage > makes the claim that it will be a viable alternative to the 4Ms. > In computational mathematics that is a testable claim. So test it. >
I don't think William sidestepped the question. I think he's just trying to say that having a large test suite is not the *only* measure for how useful a CAS is. (I'm not trying to say that you're saying this, either.) Sage has a huge test suite that gets run with every release, and I'm sure everyone would be *very* excited to see a 700 integrals get added. It would also be nice to have a list of how each of several CASes do on a large test suite. I think William is just trying to say that deciding how "good" a CAS is based on how it does on a specific test suite shouldn't motivate where peoples' energy is spent. -cc --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
