C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My own opinion (and this is JUST my opinion) is that any numbering
> scheme for STABLE RELEASES which doesn't follow the Major.Minor system
> for release is going to look very odd to users. Remember the version
> number for a computer algebra system is part of its basic marketing
> material - Maple 5, Mathematica 6, Maxima 5.9.3, etc. When people talk
> about Mathematica 5 vs. Mathematica 6, it is instantly clear. If we
> say Axiom 0703.gold.679 (for example), the first response of a
> non-developer is going to be "what?"
Make it print
Axiom 7.3 (gold, 679)
and they'll say "wow". (Curiously, it is easier to produce a version number
that carries information like the one above, than a version number like 4.1
that doesn't carry any information at all.)
> Not silver, not branches, JUST gold.
At least here in Austria, most people use wh-sandbox. (Surprisingly, at least
to me, Austrian researchers seem to embrace Axiom: MathAction lists Austria
with 2% before Canada, Russia and China, each with 1%. Not bad, eh ? --
altogether there are only roughly 8 million Austrians...)
Martin
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
