On 30 December 2014 at 13:17, Eugene Surowitz <su...@attglobal.net> wrote: > Here's some of my reactions: > ... > 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. >
Although they started out from the same source the original Axiom project and its current forks are all self-contained and independent of each other. At this point there are enough differences between the SPAD language support and libraries that back-porting code from one fork to the other is no longer straight forward. It is possible in principle for a group of developers to do more than each developer separately on separate projects but it seems to be a fundamental characteristic and perhaps even one of the strengths of open source development that closely related forks and projects "evolve" independently driven by different forces. Some eventually may thrive while others wither and die out. Open source development is kind of "organic" or maybe better said: "Darwinian". I think this is one of the reasons that many concepts from conventional software "engineering" do not map well into the open source world. > > On 12/29/2014 4:05 PM, Bill Page wrote: >> >> 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. > This seems to be what projects like Sage have (or at least had) going for them - a kind of critical mass and a sense of community. >> >> 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. I am inclined to think that "open" research can be a bit different, at least to the extent that there is some kind of effective peer group. One should expect and invite criticism from one's peers (or anyone else for that matter). Attempting to answer criticism is a test of one's results. >> >> 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. That's good. >>> >>> >>> 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. ;) > I agree that Axiom and it's forks miss an implementation of exact (computable) real numbers, but otherwise I am not aware of any major deficiencies in the available number systems. Could you elaborate on the sort of systematic development that you claim is missing? 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
