On Mar 31, 2010, at 5:45 AM, David Kirkby wrote: [...]
IMHO, if Sage is ever to become a viable alternative to Mathematica, Maple, MATLAB and Macsyma, you are going to have to shift the emphasis towards more thorough testing before making releases. I can't imagine Wolfram Research shipping binaries for platforms without testing them first. Of course bugs do occur, and what works on one machine does not necessary work on another. But it seems to me a lot of Sage bugs are avoidable. What I personally perceive as a lack of sufficient testing of Sage, leaves me questioning myself whether I ever want to use Sage. I've used Mathematica on and off for many years, and have come across bugs. But never have I come across bugs so easily avoided as I see in Sage. I'm trying to be constructive here, by pointing out what I believe are deficiencies in the current process of releases.
We all want more testing. I see two options: (1) Change lots of other people's behavior. (2) Set up a large-scale automated build farm. Though we have neither right now, I see (2) happening before (1). - Robert -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
