On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/11/24 Preben Randhol :
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:39:04 +
>> Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>
>>> Why not? I think it should be possible to have very minimalist and
>>> specialized CAS', they managed to do that in the 50s and 60s, why not
>
very good point hiro !
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:36:30AM +0100, hiro wrote:
> In a suckless CAS consisting of multiple applications the apps are
> combined easily by definition.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Preben Randhol wrote:
> > Of course you can make x applications that each solve
2009/11/24 Preben Randhol :
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:39:04 +
> Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>
>> Why not? I think it should be possible to have very minimalist and
>> specialized CAS', they managed to do that in the 50s and 60s, why not
>> today?
>
> We are not living in the 50's nor 60's... If the s
One idea is to not install any CAS software on your own computers
(probably slow and crappy compared to some huge mainframe) and just
use WolframAlpha's. Check www.wolframalpha.com
In a suckless CAS consisting of multiple applications the apps are
combined easily by definition.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Preben Randhol wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:39:04 +
> Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>
>> Why not? I think it should be possible to have very minimalist and
>> specia
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:39:04 +
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Why not? I think it should be possible to have very minimalist and
> specialized CAS', they managed to do that in the 50s and 60s, why not
> today?
We are not living in the 50's nor 60's... If the suckless approach is to
not include a fe
On 11/20/09, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Why not? I think it should be possible to have very minimalist and
> specialized CAS', they managed to do that in the 50s and 60s, why not
> today?
>
ah good old reduce
2009/11/20 Kris Maglione :
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:23:35PM -0600, A.J. Gardner wrote:
>>
>> I'm interested in math and CASs, but my opinions on available software
>> are ill-formed and mostly ignorant. Does anyone else here have an
>> interest in this topic, broadly speaking? If so, do you hav
> As a personal anecdote: I was reading a good book about numerical
> computation the other day. Everything was nicely derived and all that. But
> when it came to the C library that the respected professor had developed, I
> couldn't but think: this is absolutely terrifying. I mean, the code exampl
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 01:53:47PM +, David Tweed wrote:
As for the code "quality", I can see the code driving certain people
on this list mad because it deliberately doesn't compute things in the
simplest way and fewest lines in order to do things like acheive close
to optimal cache blocking
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 03:56:07PM +, David Tweed wrote:
> I think it's just a difference in when we'd use words like terrible.
Well, being on a suckless list, I tend to agree with suckless' definitions
of "terrible".
Perhaps all this could be elaborated from a different angle. Most of the
pe
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 02:57:24PM +, David Tweed wrote:
>> I was pointing out more how the simple-minded software metrics would
>> condemn you to around about the level of performance acheived by the
>> reference LAPACK (white bars) in
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 02:57:24PM +, David Tweed wrote:
> I was pointing out more how the simple-minded software metrics would
> condemn you to around about the level of performance acheived by the
> reference LAPACK (white bars) in the paper referenced, which to my
> mind suggests there's a f
On 11/20/09, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:23:35PM -0600, A.J. Gardner wrote:
>> Anyone know of any suckless math software out there in the tubes?
>
> As for algebra, the king of the hill is without doubt LAPACK. But since
LAPACK is about floating point computations, it has n
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 01:53:47PM +, David Tweed wrote:
>> FWIW, my understanding is that the LAPACK library must have an API
>> which conforms with a reference Fortran implementation, but there are
>> various versions implemented in va
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 01:53:47PM +, David Tweed wrote:
> FWIW, my understanding is that the LAPACK library must have an API
> which conforms with a reference Fortran implementation, but there are
> various versions implemented in various languages (Fortran, C, CUDA,
> etc).
This is true. But
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:23:35PM -0600, A.J. Gardner wrote:
>> Anyone know of any suckless math software out there in the tubes?
>
> As for algebra, the king of the hill is without doubt LAPACK. But since
> Fortran is nowadays seldom used,
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:23:35PM -0600, A.J. Gardner wrote:
> Anyone know of any suckless math software out there in the tubes?
As for algebra, the king of the hill is without doubt LAPACK. But since
Fortran is nowadays seldom used, few people can tell if it "sucks in the
sense of suckless" (?).
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:23:35PM -0600, A.J. Gardner wrote:
>>
>> I'm interested in math and CASs, but my opinions on available software
>> are ill-formed and mostly ignorant. Does anyone else here have an
>> interest in this topic, broadl
suckless calculators: bc, hoc
On 11/20/09, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> In the end, it depends on what you want to do with your CAS. If you
> want something very precise, there is good specialised software around
> (Pari was already mentioned for number theory, GAP is the way to go
> for group theory, M
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 09:46:40AM +0100, Christoph Dibak wrote:
But is there a sort of replacement for maple? Does any less-sucking or
open-source software support the maple-worksheet (.mw) format?
Don't Maple worksheets, by definition, suck more? At least,
that's my impression of anything ba
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:20:53PM +1100, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> However, it is simply not true that it "requires you to use the web
> interface to do anything useful". I have been using Sage extensively
> for teaching and research for the past two years and I spend 95% of my
> time in the command-l
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:51:31PM -0500, Kris Maglione wrote:
> Don't be silly. There's nothing like a "suckless" CAS, at least
> nothing remotely approaching the simplicity of suckless.org
> software. Computer algebra and calculus are complex and
> computationally intensive. They can't (and argua
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:23:35PM -0600, A.J. Gardner wrote:
I'm interested in math and CASs, but my opinions on available software
are ill-formed and mostly ignorant. Does anyone else here have an
interest in this topic, broadly speaking? If so, do you have any
preferences for one package over
Check out R and PDL (if you know perl).
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:23:35PM -0600, A.J. Gardner wrote:
> I'm interested in math and CASs, but my opinions on available software
> are ill-formed and mostly ignorant. Does anyone else here have an
> interest in this topic, broadly speaking? If so, do you have any
> preferences for one package
I'm interested in math and CASs, but my opinions on available software
are ill-formed and mostly ignorant. Does anyone else here have an
interest in this topic, broadly speaking? If so, do you have any
preferences for one package over another? Have you found any math
software that seem to follow th
27 matches
Mail list logo
