Arthur, I remember our conversations from the distant past. You did excellent work making Axiom quite portable based on your lisp and other modifications. Unfortunately I spent a lot of time with Bill Schelter and did work on AKCL including various Axiom optimizations so I essentially removed all that you did in order to work with what I knew. Sorry about that.
I am really sorry to hear that Albert Rich died. We corresponded quite a bit. I co-authored a rule-based system at IBM Research based on Forgy's RETE as the basis for the Expert System offering. Rich and I discussed improving the rule-based machinery in Axiom to include his work. He did amazing work. > hypothetical keen new generation could cut their teeth on would be good. The "chance" you describe is a fork. We've already seen how that evolves. The literate programming goal was to make it possible for someone to be able to maintain and modify Axiom without contact with the original developers. It was intended to "make Axiom live". The current sources build from the books (pamphlet format is just latex renamed). I collected a few research papers and got permission to re-create them in one of the books. Unfortunately I only expanded certain algebra domains in literate form. I did insert bibliographic references in the algebra sources when I could find the papers. > A "30 year horizon" surely involves a project being reinvented and > reforged anew It is not possible to do deep research such as adding proofs using the Axiom/SPAD combination. The parser/compiler is too fragile for such deep surgery. So relative to my "research focus" fricas is an effort devoted to "polishing". Worse I've introduced dependent types which really complicates the inheritance logic well beyond what the current compiler can handle. The SANE version of Axiom is wildly different from the github version. For example, the source is now all pure common lisp using CLOS. It is also restructured from the ground up to include a LEAN Proof inheritance tower parallel to the Category-Domain towers. (I spent many years as a visiting scholar at CMU working with the CS and Math/Philosophy related to LEAN) So you can see that for the last decade I've drifted quite far from the git repo. Worse, I've drifted from the SPAD world. Given that i was vilified for removing BOOT code I expect the non-existing Axiom community would not approve. Thus none of the code hit the repo. > So having a reasonably definitive "here lies" archive with at least > workable build scripts and pointers to the easier tasks that a > hypothetical keen new generation could cut their teel on would be good. The last tombstone above the current Axiom work is in git. There is also a tombstone on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_(computer_algebra_system) The git repo built and ran tests without errors when last I checked (a long time ago). It uses a known-good tar copy of Camm's Lisp which he has changed since then. The X11 replacement (Wayland) seems to be spreading rapidly but I don't know if Wayland will support Axiom's X11 code. Code rot happens. Most amusing is that Axiom runs on Windows :-) Tim On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 4:58 AM Arthur Norman <a...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > I mentioned the demise of Axiom on this list as it seemed like some might > > find it an interesting event if only for historical reasons. > > Tim > > It is absolutely that. But one possibility for software is the chance (not > necessarily huge, but still there) of a Phoenix Event where a new piece of > work emerges from what may have looked like mere charred remains of the > previous one. If a small group from a younger generation started from what > you have now they might have different priorities from yours, but one > might hope that the literate style you have got things on might make it > easier for them to get going than would otherwise be the case. > A "30 year horizon" surely involves a project being reinvented and > reforged anew and in legend the new players are typically not just ones > who have been easy epprentices of the old master! > > So having a reasonably definitive "here lies" archive with at least > workable build scripts and pointers to the easier tasks that a > hypothetical keen new generation could cut their teel on would be good. > > I mostly look after Reduce these days. You have described the sort of > stuff I do in terms of "product" but I do not think that way - I think in > terms of "service" so that those whose research (or develpment!) is in > physics or engineering etc can use Reduce as a tool. So I get a > research-buzz second hand if you like. But as regards "dead" projects I > note that Albert Rich had been working on a pretty individual project > where the concept was to see how much of computer algebra could be > expressed as rewrite rules (rather than in imperative style). You do not > need agree that this was going to succeed - just that he spent much time > on it. He died a year ago. There is a sensible snapshot of his "RUBI" > indefinite integration stuff and it is a snapshot not a perfact version > since he expired while still working! But I (among others) have been > having a go at reviving it in ways that are not at all all in the > direction he was working. RUBI is a lot smaller than Axiom but maybe > somebody will be able to pluck a component from Axiom for good use > elsewhere. And again if they do it will be a really interesting test of > the literate philosophy to see how that helps them! > > Regards > > Arthur (from ages ago when Axiom was shipped by NAG) > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fricas-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fricas-devel/CAJn5L%3DLZJksnAtcFYc4oVkJGwkEUYGeEcUH69ifq7R46ekDeRw%40mail.gmail.com.
