15:35:04 Mike Hansen wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: William Stein <wstein at gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, May 25, 2008 at 11:23 PM
> Subject: [sage-devel] sage
> To: maxima at math.utexas.edu, "sage-devel at googlegroups.com"
> <sage-devel at googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
> Hi Maxima (and Sage-Devel),
>
> This email is about the thread
>
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/2008/011679.html
>
> about combining Maxima and Octave in the
> same environment so that one can do numerical and symbolic computation
> without having to reinvent the wheel and implement everything in both
> of those systems. Not surprisingly, I think such collaboration
> is a great idea. Since the thread discusses Sage, I thought I
> would make a few comments.
>
> > > Where does sage come into this discussion?
>
> Sage includes interfaces to Maxima and Octave. One can use
> both systems from within Sage and pass data back and forth.
> We have made _massive_ use of Maxima in Sage to date (note
> that Sage includes Maxima). So Sage is a proof-of-concept that
> there is genuine value in building community, collaboration, and
> cooperation between open source math software projects.
I agree that the whole idea of sage is quite promising. However, why not make
even more powerfull. The key feature is a python interface to the different
pieces of math software. So why not to provide just a python module without
that all staff in 200Mb? Can the user make the choice by self what lisp, what
CAS and what interpeter for numerics to use? Otherwise for each concrete
situation is much easier and effective to use alternatives.