Asshole
Tom Boothby
If you're going to be a complete and total asshole, do it here. I quote:
"""
I think that this is one of those times that you might like to look up
in the literature how to do something, instead of pulling an
"algorithm" out of your posterior. Stable evaluation of polynomials is
the subject.
"""
"""
hey, factoring-testing guys..
If you make up factoring problems this way, you are probably not doing
much testing of the real factoring algorithms.
"""
In the first case, the problem was arguably the implementation, not
the algorithm (I can't really vouch for this one without looking into
it). In the second case, a user reported a bug and posted an example
that highlights the bug. Looks to me not like this was not somebody
"making up factoring problems", but somebody who found a bug while
doing a computation. And you belittle them for this?
In both cases, your comments were completely out of line, and not
welcome on sage-devel.
--tom
rjf
On Oct 2, 11:16 pm, Tom Boothby <tomas.boot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In the first case, the problem was arguably the implementation, not
> the algorithm (I can't really vouch for this one without looking into
> it).
But the program was made up, and was written either ignoring or in
ignorance of basic error analysis on a well-known and analyzed
problem.
In the second case, a user reported a bug and posted an example
> that highlights the bug. Looks to me not like this was not somebody
> "making up factoring problems", but somebody who found a bug while
> doing a computation.
domain?
They were testing factoring, and accidentally found that the Sage
wrapper
(or the PARI program's contract with Sage) was wrong.
And you belittle them for this?
that, fairly obviously, is what they were doing.
> In both cases, your comments were completely out of line, and not
> welcome on sage-devel.
defense on Sage-flame!
William Stein
Regarding sage-devel -- now that we have sage-flame, I will not
tolerate overly rude behavior on sage-devel. Please be civil and
respectful on sage-devel.
Thank you,
William
Tom Boothby
>> welcome on sage-devel.
>
> I'm sure the original posters much appreciate your coming to their
> defense on Sage-flame!
I'm not coming to anybody's defense. I posted here because I wanted
the discussion to be public, but wanted to use language not
appropriate to sage-devel. Why is all of this so hard for you to
understand?
rjf
Remember, Tom Boothby, when your employer Googles for your name, he
may find it here.
I notice that Frederic J continues to correspond on Sage-Devel so
apparently
he is not so offended as to not respond. He also doesn't require
scatology in the subject line.
If you want people to tip-toe around the advice that -- oh my dear --
maybe
some contributor should read about a topic before he writes a program
--
maybe you should have a newsgroup
sage-naive-ego-boosting-we-love-your-crappy-programs-like-our-own.
It might also be good to have at least one person who has a background
in numerical
analysis who is going to help check out programs that are plausibly
numerical in nature.
language.
RJF
Tom Boothby
Yup. It's rather the point.
William Stein
>
> Oh, so here you can use language appropriate to Sage-Flame?
>
> Remember, Tom Boothby, when your employer Googles for your name, he
> may find it here.
mailing list! Shame on you. And start wearing shoes :-)
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org