"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gaby, | | On August 23, 2006 6:08 PM you wrote: | > | > ... [symbolic computation versus computer algebra] | > | > my point is that that distinction is largely an academic | > | > exercise in ways we approach the subject matter, and NOT | > | > a really deep one (though it may be given substance). | > | | > | I think you are wrong. I think Steven Watt's paper | > | provides a very substantive example: | > | > it seems we have entered the traditional phase of | > opinion-vs-proof-by-authority. I guess, the best we can | > do is to postpone the discussion for more data. | | I did not mention Steven Watt as an appeal to authority (or did | you have some other authority in mind?) but I would be glad to | continue the discussion of his paper on this subject after you | get a chance to read it. :)
I read it; I don't know why you thought I did not :-) As I said, we may might have to suspend the debate for more data. [...] | > How do you measure success? | > | | One measure of success that makes sense to me is the number | of people who actively contribute to the improvement of Axiom. | Another measure is the number of people who actually use Axiom | in their research and/or teaching. In terms of these measures | Axiom is not (yet) a failure but I believe that we could do | much better and I am disappointed with rate of change. My first approximation of success is the number of users. The number of contributors, to me, is essentially secondary -- as long as it is not close to zero. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
