On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Robert Bradshaw
<rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
> Thus psage will be a superset of a subset of sage.
Yes.
> Do you envision a
> migration path of code from psage to sage?
Yes.
> (Perhaps not instigated or
> executed by the original authors of the code of course.)
Yes.
> Would it be
> easy to install the "missing pieces" into a psage setup, or,
> conversely, install the new parts of psage on top of Sage?
Yes, and yes.
> That being
> said, the sage-combinat model seems like it would be a huge amount of
> work to manage, but is nice for the end user. (Doesn't solve the
> messiness of ugly build problems with arcane spkgs...)
I want PSAGE to solve for me a similar problem that sage-combinat
faces. However, the solution I'm using is different. It is much more
flexible and powerful, and can have interesting benefits for Sage due
to it helping clarify some of the dependencies of Sage. E.g., the
first issue is about exactly how much Sage still depends on Maxima
http://code.google.com/p/purplesage/issues/detail?id=1
since Maxima is one of the standard spkg's not in PSage.
...
>> Again, I'm not necessarily claiming Sage itself needs to move that
>> quickly again. This is very difficult technically due to the larger
>> number of platforms supported, the larger test suite, codebase, etc.
>> But something does need to change, or some of the truly brilliant
>> computational mathematics researchers (like Mark Watkins, say) will be
>> unlikely to be drawn in again. For me, PSAGE will accomplish this
>> goal, while allowing me to continue to benefit from the incredibly
>> valuable high quality work that so many people are doing on making
>> Sage a solid, well tested, cross-platform system.
>
> I agree, something needs to change, and it makes more sense to create
> an agile offshoot. I suppose my sweet spot would be where Sage was 2-3
> years ago: reviews were in place but usually quite quick, doctests
> were good but 100% was not required, less worrying about the long tail
> of operating systems. etc. (I'm probably suffering from golden-age
> nostalgic blindness a bit here...)
Same here.
> But that may not be what's needed,
> especially to jumpstart things again. I just don't want to see psage
> becoming a divergent fork of what Sage was in late 2010, or an
> enormous amount of effort required to keep the two projects on a track
> where they can continue to benefit from each other.
Neither do I.
>
> - 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
>
--
William Stein
Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--
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
