On 24 December 2014 at 20:31, Eugene Surowitz <su...@attglobal.net> wrote: > Ralf is only telling it as it is, > but I wish I could be even as pessimistic as him. >
I am definitely not as pessimistic as either of you! > This is a crisis disguised as another documentation squabble. It seems to me the crisis actually began many years ago when IBM abandoned Axiom as a research project (gave it to NAG) and it eventually failed as a commercial product. > As I see the status of PanAxiom: > > OpenAxiom - One developer - little to no activity = dead branch. It is remarkable to me how our perceptions differ! When did you last look at OpenAxiom? I think the effort in OpenAxiom has been mostly of an internal nature: extensions to the SPAD language, improvements in coding style and preparations for re-basing the system on LLVM rather than Lisp. Last summer FriCAS had a Google Summer-Of-Code funded project with similar goals. But Gaby has also implemented an alternate graphical user interface for OpenAxiom. > FriCAS - One developer - one developer - system being devolved. This opinion also seems odd. What do you mean by "devolved"? As I see it from the point of view of mathematics, FriCAS is the only project that has made any substantial progress. FriCAS is also the only project that supports Aldor as an alternate library compiler. Both FriCAS and OpenAxiom are (or were recently) used in teaching and research. This sounds more like evolution to me than devolution. > Axiom - One developer - when he goes Axiom goes. > I think that you are probably right here that "when he goes the [original] Axiom project goes". I am not aware of anyone motivated to continue the work in the direction that Tim Daly has taken it. But I do agree with the implication of your initial characterization of the problem as being "disguised as another documentation squabble". I no longer think that (lack of) documentation is the central issue. It may sound rather arrogant to say so, but it seems to me the problem is more likely to be simply that Axiom was and still is ahead of its time: the majority of computer algebra system users simply do not yet have the level of sophistication or necessary experience to appreciate it. This is not likely to be changed much by the presence or absence of documentation or even tutorial training materials. To see this I think one only needs to look at the marketing strategies of the commercial computer algebra systems. Oddly perhaps things were different back when Axiom was under development at IBM; then (1970's) it seems that nearly everyone who worked with Axiom was a sophisticated expert. There has been an explosive growth in the interest in computer algebra systems but very little progress in passing on that early expertise to the next generation(s). So the original Axiom open source project now seems of only marginal interest to me. Nothing that Tim is working on right now is particularly relevant to how or why I remain interested in Axiom (or more specifically, FriCAS).. > The basic issue that I see is that PanAxiom is really a > software engineering project before it can continue to live. No, I think the days when we could usefully and optimistically speak of "PanAxiom" are gone. There are now clearly three separate projects with a life (or death) or their own (four if you want to count Aldor). I also disagree that any of these projects are fundamentally "software engineering projects" except maybe Aldor. As I see it Axiom as a concept is still fundamentally a research project - as is the entire field of computer algebra as a whole. The most that software engineering can offer is minor improvements in technique. > > The literate approach that Knuth created has no answer to > mass of existing code problem: that is, he didn't think out > a mechanism for the curious to dynamically add insights to > the system's code even if literate. Inverses are sooo.. hard. Do you mean some kind of "reverse engineering"? I think you are right that literate programming methodologies do not make this any easier. Once I thought that a user supported and maintained web site (wiki) might be an answer to this. Although the FriCAS project still supports the wiki that started in the early days of the original Axiom project, I would say that it also counts as a (mostly) failed experiment. > > Oh, and PanAxiom has no systematic development of basic numerology. > I suppose it is worthwhile to ask what you might mean by "numerology"? Obviously not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology ... Maybe "number systems"? Regards, Bill Page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel