Yes, I probably should have said that the spirit of sage is in sync with the spirit of this manifesto. One of the founding principles of sage is that one should be able to check the code to verify claims by authors, and the manifesto addresses that same issue. Were the manifesto to be generally embraced, systems like sage would likely benefit most because they don't leave a black box component like matlab or maple.
I imagine that the manifesto is minimal in order to have a chance to be widely embraced. But again I'd suggest that any move towards open code publishing would favor a completely open solutions like sage. On Oct 14, 2:12 am, Maarten Derickx <m.derickx.stud...@gmail.com> wrote: > The manifesto seems not to adress computer algebra systems since it is about > code written specifically for processing data for a published paper. Since > the code in sage is intended for use by multiple scientist and not for a > specific paper it seems not really legit to discuss how well sage fits the > manifesto. It seems to be intended specifically for the code written by > researchers using something like sage, one of the ma* or general purpose > languages like c++ etc. > > Altough I agree with what they say in the manifesto, I would say that what > they say there is really a bare minimum. For example they do not even insist > that the source code should be licenced in such a way that you can use it > for scientific purposes. So the manifesto does not guarantee that the code > equivalent of citing another persons result is possible (with this I mean > that you write a program using depending on the functions the other > researcher wrote). > > Maarten -- 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
