Waldek, On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 3:26 PM, you wrote: > > Well, I agree that OpenAxiom code _looks_ better. You > say that 'attempting to decode how FriCAS actually ends up > producing the output' boggles your mind. However, have you > tried to understand what OpenAxiom is doing? >
Yes - at least in this and a few other instances. In fact I've been trying to do this for years now in all flavors of Axiom. I suppose it comes down to a form of documentation - kind of the opposite of what Tim Daly originally proposed for Axiom - readability of the code versus coding from a document (literate programming). I think that is what OpenAxiom is trying to do. I am encourage by Gaby's progress. > FYI FriCAS code was rewritten this summer and what it is > doing now is much simpler (and faster) than original version. I am also aware of all the work that you have been doing to improve FriCAS and it was certainly not my intention either directly or indirectly to be critical. FriCAS still remains my main tool of choice for computer algebra and I appreciate the hard work that you are putting into it. My concern about the future has to do with the total amount of effort for someone to get to the level of understanding of the code to make substantial improvements. > Actually original did crazy things and the only reason I > find for doing such things is that previous authors did > not fully understand what it is doing. AFAICS OpenAxiom > still contains at least part of original craziness. > I am sure you are correct. Improvement has to be an iterative process. I should add the usual encouragement that more sharing of understanding and methods would be beneficial to both projects. Regards, Bill Page. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en.
