Richard Fateman wrote:
> >
>
>> Where does sage come into this discussion?
>>
>
> I guess they would like to be used instead of Octave, Matlab, Maxima, ... .
>
> I think that the Sage project people have their own ambition to become the
> centerpiece of mathematical computation, and underestimate the difficult of
> reprogramming everything. They seem to be very heavy on abstract mathematics
> and the systems that assist in various "applications" to pure math. Their
> view of Maxima is somewhat jaded because they insist on using CLISP, even if
> it is slow: they require (for no defensible reason, in my view) that they
> can only use a lisp system that can be compiled by them on every targeted
> machine. Thus Maxima is relatively slow.
>
OK. back to Maxima and Octave.
The reasons I set my project aside are:
1) the whole structure and background of Maxima is quite different than
Octave
therefore the parsers will by large
2) Normally, for what I use Octave for (control theory and filters in
Laplace space) I don't need Maxima.
It was fun linking to Maxima and getting a differential and bringing it
back and plotting it, but
was it useful?
So I think the first question to ask is:
who would use it and what for.
For myself I didn't have a real use for it.
das
Just my 2 cents worth.