On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Jack Dyson <jackdyso...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dima, > > Thankyou for your quick reply - I appreciate what you said about development > of sagenb as a whole, and actually I do see the point. > > Logically therefore, as you indicate, iPython is a good alternative. > Unfortunately, it is not fully compatible with sagemath, for example R > doesn't access it properly in all respects or the 3D graphics formatting was > of last time I checked. > > The current sagenb is excellent on both those things even if the structure > is dated: I want to just make clear it does work extremely well and that's > what a user spends 80% of their time doing. > > It is great that SMC's notebook is actually available in some way: and here > I feel that a decision needs to be made: > > therefore one of these should answer well: > > 1) "phase out" sagenb completely and integrate SMC into the sage > distributable quickly so that it is the default option - as was hinted at a > few years ago. It was in fact stated then that developing sagenb was a > "waste of developer resources" > 2) dump jmol and make iPython the default notebook and address its remaining > incompatibilities with packages (which would need a rewrite of the sagemath > API so it is no longer view model dependent I suppose) > 3) create a new independent team around sagenb : decide what we need and > continue Sam's work in whatever framework we want, the functional model of > the code made independent from the implementation > > The corollary is clear: not all sagemath users want to specialize to SMC for > various reasons, and the sagemath userbase (universities for example) as a > distributable is going to be under threat without a viable modern local > interface just like Maxima was years back before wxmaxima.
For a more local interface, also consider the possibility of building on nteract: https://github.com/nteract/nteract It's basically an Electron app rewrite from scratch of Jupyter. > > I think William wrote something below about installing a docker and getting > SMC up, very welcome indeed : I'll give that a go for starters. > > Best from here, > > Jack > > > > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 9:05:50 PM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:42:40 PM UTC, Jack Dyson wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 10:44:21 AM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >>> > Hello all, >>> > >>> > I propose to make SageNB no longer a separate package but to move it >>> > back into the Sage git tree. For purposes of installation and use of >>> > SageNB, it will still be a separate Python package, but the sources >>> > will >>> > be in $SAGE_ROOT/src/sagenb instead of a separate git repo. The changes >>> > to the Sage build system to support this move will be minimal. >>> > >>> > The reason is that SageNB is truly in maintenance mode currently. >>> > Making >>> > new SageNB releases regularly to fix things is a burden for the SageNB >>> > release manager Karl-Dieter Crisman. On #14840 [1], he said "the sooner >>> > sagenb gets back in Sage proper, the better!" >>> > >>> > The original reason to split SageNB from Sage was to enable quick >>> > development. That worked for a while, but now that development has >>> > stalled, this reason no longer applies. A secondary reason was to make >>> > SageNB truly independent from Sage, but that also never happened. So I >>> > see no reason to keep SageNB split from Sage currently. >>> > >>> > I know this is a controversial proposal, but it will certainly be >>> > easier >>> > to maintain SageNB this way. I also want to stress that this is >>> > orthogonal to any future deprecation or removal of SageNB: we can still >>> > do that from the Sage git tree. >>> > >>> > Jeroen. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > [1] http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14840#comment:58 >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> With the greatest respect, I disagree strongly - chopping and changing >>> the notebook this way leads to a lot of instability in the code and >>> confusion for anyone who wants to get into developing on sagenb projects. >>> >>> Added to the fact that none of us would have time to document changes in >>> detail causes new contributions stagnate, which wastes effort and randomizes >>> progress. >>> >>> Actually the functionality of the current notebook is good, the look and >>> ui is very dated and as many are aware, a bit on the unpolished side. >>> >>> Remembering Samuel Ainsworth's really good work a few year's back, I >>> would like to ask why was that system not developed and integrated into the >>> local sagemath distributable? >>> >>> From the trials he conducted in 2012 it ran well on Sage 5.3 and was in >>> my opinion a decent step forward. I'll post this to a separate question as I >>> wanted to explore the possibilities of getting that up and running again, >>> even if only for private use here. >>> >>> It doesn't seem to connect to sage 7.3 so I wanted to see if anyone knew >>> why ? >> >> >> I understand that opinions on usability of >> https://github.com/sagemath/sagenb/tree/newui >> diverge. (and with the breakneck speed javascript >> frameworks are developed, one may ask whether something written in 2012 is >> still a great idea) >> >> You ask why sagenb is not developed further. >> 1) the sagenb's design is really dated, and jupyter notebook seems a >> better (and much better >> supported) alternative. >> 2) Another actively developed alternative is SMCs notebook, which can be >> run >> locally. >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-notebook" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-notebook+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-notebook. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- William (http://wstein.org) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
