On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > > > One question I have is (1) how dropping omitting things would make it > easier for engineers and (2) if there are packages that are high > enough quality and useful for engineers, why having them would hurt > having them distributed with the main Sage. Is half a GB "too big" > for the modern engineer's computer? > > I think more useful would be a tutorial (or several) written > specifically from an engineering perspective, and if you think the > current environment is lacking, it would be good to implement a top- > level command that would pre-define a bunch of functions and > variables useful for engineers (and could even go install optional > packages if they're not present). I just see this being way more > useful (and lots easier) than shipping a separate version of Sage, > and saying "oh, in this version, do this, and in that version do > that, and you can't do this in this version..." > > - Robert >
I'm an engineer and I certainly don't want a separate version. Like I said earlier, what's needed is a) examples b) consistent conversion/coercion between types To clarify, there are a number of high quality polynomial packages in Sage, but they're kind of isolated. I'd like to be able to use those routines on symbolic expression polynomials and then continue with the resulting symbolic expression. Also, there is: c) Improved support for Pynac so one can call non-Pynac routines using expressions defined using Pynac (e.g., Maxima integration). Cheers, Tim. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
