On 26/08/2008, at 8:15 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> Is "not extending of Maxima" a concrete policy? I understand that >> maxima >> sucks in some circumstances, but it seems quite the beast here. >> I am quite confused about a lot of the pattern matching >> discussion. AFAICT, >> that is the problem for which lisp rocks, and the best way to do it >> is > > I think it's just about getting people to fix it. There are many > people around who can fix Python/Cython and a little less (I guess) > who can fix C++ and C. But a lot less who can fix lisp. I think that could change. There must be a few experienced mathematica users who would happily enough pick up lisp as part of their transition to sage. Mathematica -> lisp -> sage is surely easier than mathematica -> python -> sage. Anyway, it is always better to learn the right tool for the job, than to rewrite it yourself. It will be less effort for sage people to learn lisp than to design and implement a pattern matching language / domain-specific-language / library. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_Tenth_Rule "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp." D ================================== David J Philp Postdoctoral Fellow National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Building 62, cnr Mills Rd & Eggleston Rd The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 Australia T: +61 2 6125 8260 F: +61 2 6125 0740 M: 0423 535 397 W: http://nceph.anu.edu.au/ CRICOS Provider #00120C --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
