Hi, I've updated the article based on everybody's feedback. Thanks.
The new version is here: http://wstein.org/papers/focm11/ I can still make some last minute changes in the next day. (Don't worry about the weird formatting of the first two pages.) William On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Niles <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for the article -- I agree that it should end up somewhere > easily accessible for people who are sage-curious. Here are some > things I noticed, which of course you're free to ignore :) > > > * The phrase "..at least.." rubs me the wrong way in the two places > you've used it (describing the many bugs listed on Trac, and > describing how you can shoot yourself in the foot with Cython). To my > eyes, it reads as an implicit confession that these are weaknesses, > not strengths of Sage. I bet you didn't mean it that way! > > * The warning about overflow in the middle of page 5 interrupts the > train of thought in that section, and seems especially out of place > since you address overflow later. Maybe that warning should be > removed or moved to a footnote. > > * In the second paragraph of section 3, you use \emph (or \textit or > something) for "distribuion", "including Python", and "interface". Of > these three, I think the first and third are aligned with the point of > the paragraph, but the second is tangential and therefore > distracting. One way to reorganize that sentence without the \emph > might be > > "The download of Sage contains all dependencies required for the > normal functioning of Sage, including Python itself." > > * The paragraph at the end of page 5, beginning of page 6 "Much of the > work that hundreds of Sage developers does . . ." seems weaker than > the rest of the article. I think some thorough rewriting is needed > there. > > > > On Aug 30, 12:51 am, William Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm going to remove that graphic from the paper, since it seems to >> annoy too many people. Also, I don't have a good pdf version of it >> (only png). It would be really cool to have a canonical high >> quality graphic along those lines though, for the Sage website, etc. > > That's a real shame, but I can understand not wanting to be drawn into > a long process of community graphic designing. Hopefully this will > prompt someone else to put some work into it. For that person, I have > a couple of suggestions: 1. it's redundant to list names like > "Singular" and "Gap" when they can be clearly read from the images. > 2. The diagram *looks* complete because the contributing programs make > a complete circle -- leaving 1/4 or 1/3 of the circle open might be a > way to visually communicate that this is only a partial list. > > > Thanks again, > Niles > > -- > To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
