[JOSS REVIEW] Add comparison to commonly used N-Body Codes into the Paper

[schuhmaj]

The issue

JOSS requires

State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?

While your current JOSS paper includes references to the employed technologies. A comparison/ mentioning of software offering similar functionality as EXP is missing.

I've read a bit through your references. In Petersen et al. [1] you mention GADGET-2. Hence, this issue should be fairly trivial to resolve by adding a few sentences how EXP compares to GADGET-2 and other N-body codes in a paragraph of the JOSS paper.

[1] Michael S Petersen, Martin D Weinberg, Neal Katz, EXP: N-body integration using basis function expansions, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 510, Issue 4, March 2022, Pages 6201–6217, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab3639

---

This issue is part of the JOSS review: openjournals/joss-reviews#7302

[michael-petersen]

Thanks for the recommendations! We have addressed this in 28d3944.

[michael-petersen]

Finished with the merge of #100.