William Stein wrote: > > The best conclusion I can draw from all this is that for now at least > I'm going to focus on symbolic/algebraic computation, and let > Enthought continue to do a great job building the Python numerical > stack. I think that the survey results are at least in part a reflection of the current state of sage/numpy integration - i.e. the inability of numpy to accept sage types.
Personally, I find the combination of sage's notebook interface + numpy useful, and I hope that eventually sage and numpy will work better together. I am keeping an eye on SPD, and may eventually switch to it instead of sage. I recognize that there are limited developer resources, and it is better to restrict the target feature set and do a few things very well than it is be to do a wider range of things poorly. In the longer term though, I would welcome improved integration of sage and numpy/scipy. I don't currently have the skills nor the time to write code, but I will be happy to act as a tester. -- Kevin Horton --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
