On Mar 31, 8:41 pm, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > On 3/31/11 2:09 PM, kcrisman wrote:
> +1 to everything you said. Also, I'd like to point out that since many > upstream developers lurk on this and other Sage lists, our "colloquial" > conversations actually are heard by many upstream developers. Even if a > particular upstream developer is not subscribed, many other upstream > developers see how we behave as a group and that will probably influence > their opinion of Sage. Correct. Please also bear in mind that many "upstream" developers have put years of their life into research, development of algorithms and coding. Many of them are professional mathematicians, not computer scientists or professional programmers. They live and die by theorems, grants, teaching, publications, etc., not language standards and may only care if their code works for them and their immediate friends! They very often do not have time to maintain it to the high standard they might prefer, and their donation of their code is made on that understanding. There's a fine line between critiquing/refereeing/improving code and ridiculing it. If you want to ridicule code which does not conform to the standard, take your best shot: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4568645/printing-1-to-1000-without-loop-or-conditionals/4583502#4583502 -- 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
