Differences between revisions 3 and 4
⇤ ← Revision 3 as of 2009-03-11 16:52:47 →
Size: 790
Editor: was
Comment:
← Revision 4 as of 2009-03-11 17:00:49 → ⇥
Size: 705
Editor: was
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 11: Line 11:
 1. Should Macaulay2 be made a standard component of Sage this year? Why or why not?  

Discussion: Sage, Macaulay 2, and other Mathematical Software for Algebraic Geometry

  1. What are the absolutely critical "killer" features that you *must* have in the mathematical software you use for your research?

  2. Do you use or want to use 2d and 3d graphics in your research (or papers)? If so, how? What are you missing?
  3. What are some things that disturb you about the direction in which Sage is going? (E.g., too big/ambitious? not open enough or too open? too many bugs? changing too quickly? referee process for code inclusion too onerous?)
  4. What are some things that disturb you about the direction in which Macaulay2 is going? (similar e.g. as above)

days14/what (last edited 2009-03-11 20:47:45 by AlexGhitza)