Here's some of my reactions: On 12/29/2014 4:05 PM, Bill Page wrote: > 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! > I'm glad to hear this. My own level of interest has been been there for about thirty years at this point. 'Pessimism' may the wrong word. >> 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. > Yup! Though Dick Jenks wasn't real happy with my cost analysis of maintaining Axiom as a product; it subsequently went to NAG.
>> 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. > Each version/fork of the code reduces the net effectiveness of the programming hours spent unless each person tunnel visions their work; that's just good control of your own time/effort. I in no way imply that the separate forks aren't making very meaningful improvements. Its just that there is no whole that is greater than the sum of the parts or even equal to them. > 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. > I agree with every word. And user communities are notoriously resistant learning assignments. > 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). > True for every large system. A cultural community or mechanism beyond code + documentation is needed. > 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. > Research projects are very nice provided no one expects me to believe or reproduce the results. >> >> 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. > As I said: users don't do homework. I call it an interesting experiment; I intend to look further into it. Waldek's comments fit in here. >> >> 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"? > Yup; the forks should be able to count their p's and q's. ;) > Regards, > Bill Page. > Cheers, Gene ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
