Bill Page wrote:
>
> Waldek,
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 3:26 PM, you wrote:
> >
> > Well, I agree that OpenAxiom code _looks_ better. =A0You
> > say that 'attempting to decode how FriCAS actually ends up
> > producing the output' boggles your mind. =A0However, 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.
>
I am a bit disappointed that after rewrite you find FriCAS
version so hard to understand. Could you say what OpenAxiom
version easier to you? Is it difference between:
PrinAncb := categoryPrincipals CatEval(bname,$e)
and
PrinAncb:= first(b).(4)
(and similar places)?
--
Waldek Hebisch
[email protected]
--
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.
