Is it OK to add a module intended for teaching?

[Andrey Novoseltsev]

Hello,

http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14288 provides a module for
teaching the simplex method, i.e. you should NOT use it routinely to
just get solutions of optimization problems. Dima has pointed out that
an optional package may be more appropriate in such cases. Does anyone
else has an opinion on these matters?

As I see it, the disadvantage for getting it in as a module is
increasing the code base, in this case source.tar.gz will get about
+25kb.

Disadvantages of optional packages - less visibility and extra work
for those who want to use it. In particular, interacts will not be
possible, unless someone maintains a Sage Cell Server with suitable
optional packages installed or includes optional modules into the cell
(3916 lines in this case). Advantages: no limits on size, e.g. it
would be possible to bundle supporting worksheets with rendered plots
and formulas, perhaps some lecture notes.

I'd prefer to have computational modules as a part of standard
distribution and big documentation extras - as packages.

If this will turn out to be OK with others: should there be a special
place for such modules? Dima has suggested sage/teaching.

Thank you!
Andrey

[David Joyner]

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Andrey Novoseltsev <novo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14288 provides a module for
> teaching the simplex method, i.e. you should NOT use it routinely to
> just get solutions of optimization problems. Dima has pointed out that
> an optional package may be more appropriate in such cases. Does anyone
> else has an opinion on these matters?

+1

I know of at least one OR person at the USNA who will use that in teaching.

>
> As I see it, the disadvantage for getting it in as a module is
> increasing the code base, in this case source.tar.gz will get about
> +25kb.
>
> Disadvantages of optional packages - less visibility and extra work
> for those who want to use it. In particular, interacts will not be
> possible, unless someone maintains a Sage Cell Server with suitable
> optional packages installed or includes optional modules into the cell
> (3916 lines in this case). Advantages: no limits on size, e.g. it
> would be possible to bundle supporting worksheets with rendered plots
> and formulas, perhaps some lecture notes.
>
> I'd prefer to have computational modules as a part of standard
> distribution and big documentation extras - as packages.
>
> If this will turn out to be OK with others: should there be a special
> place for such modules? Dima has suggested sage/teaching.
>
> Thank you!
> Andrey
>

> --
> 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+...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[Volker Braun]

At the end of the day, you are writing a toy implementation of an algorithm that can be used for teaching. It is also a great resource to check results of more optimized algorithms, so I see it as a useful part of the Sage library whether you use it for teaching or not.

In this particular case there is already some framework for different LP backends, and it would be best-integrated if you could push your code into a separate (toy-) backend. 

If that is not feasible (and I don't really know myself) then I would put it the same subdirectory as the other LP stuff as toy_simplex.py or some such.