Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Literate programming

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
>> So ... just how does one "get started" doing literate programming in
>> Axiom? Suppose, for example, I am working on a queuing theory model and
>> want to mix equations, data, graphs, etc. in a paper? Curiously enough,
>> LyX interfaces directly to noweb but not to Axiom and TeXmacs interfaces
>> directly to Axiom but not to noweb. :)
>
> That sounds to me as if you have slightly different goals from mine.
The ultimate goal is to produce an advanced environment for modeling
performance and availability of computing systems and networks. Similar
tools exist, but only two are open source, and those two use Java,
rendering them "impure" in the eyes of many open source advocates. And
neither of them will conveniently handle the semi-Markov and non-Markov
cases that I'm interested in -- they are essentially Markov chain solvers.

I could do this all numerically in R -- that was the original plan until
I discovered Axiom. However, I think Axiom is "smarter" than R -- being
a symbolic and theoretical engine, it's capable of taking on more of the
jobs. For example, Axiom can do a Laplace transform out of the box --
I'd have to code that in R.
>
> I wanted an environment that describes theory and the program in
> connection to that theory. I didn't have the need to show output of
> that program. (Well, not yet.)
>
> What you want is basically a running system like Axiom, Maple or
> Mathematica and *use* that system. The code you are going to write
> will probably not be much difficult.
>
> Axiom+TeXmacs, Maple-worksheets and Mma-notebooks provide such an
> environment. But I don't think that is the end of the story. Someone
> has to write the underlying systems. And there is some
> theory/ideas/etc behind the code even if it is not connected with
> mathematics/physics/etc in the first place.
>
> Of course it would be nice to have everything together, but I somehow
> fear that people who primarily _use_ CASs are not well trained
> programmers. I think that makes the code part hard to read even if the
> theory around it is nicely described.
Something close to what I want to build has been done using Mathematica,
and one of the two open-source packages I mentioned above can interface
to Matlab or Maple. Mathematica, Maple and Matlab are not open source
nor are they low-cost -- serious licenses for corporate users start
somewhere around $1000US as I recall.

I hope I'm not the *only* exception to your conjecture of people who use
CASs not being well-trained programmers. :) I've been both a
programmer/computer scientist and applied mathematician for over 40
years. And of course, given a finite amount of time, people like me must
carefully allocate time between using the tools and working on them.
>
> Another point is the integrity of an "interactive" or "computed"
> document. If the underlying system changes (for example Maple modified
> its programming language several times) the results in the document
> might no longer be computable, so the document becomes unusable.
>
> There are lots of problems, that are not yet solved.
>
> I think that TeXmacs is the way to go, but TeXmacs was a bit slow for
> my taste and the wysiwyg thing somehow contradicts TeX. One should
> concentrate on the contents not on its appearance. But of course,
> having CAS command lines integrated into the text is nice.
>
> Ralf
>

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

http://linuxcapacityplanning.com