Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: A modest proposal

[Stephen Wilson]

Ralf Hemmecke <address@hidden> writes:

> >> I wait for Gaby to submit a patch. I think that will be the better
> >> road than simply switch to wh-sandbox and make some people angry.
> >> We should stay together as a community. Please.
> > I totally agree.  All I hope for is that the patch is documented and
> > is in keeping with the clearly stated goals of the project.
> 
> It would be super good if the patch is properly documented, but that is
> *not* my priority. Gaby is certainly willing to improve his autoconf
> work with documentation when it is in trunk. How come that people seem
> to think that Gaby is not committed to LP?

I dont think its an issue of lack of commitment.  I think it is a
divergence in process.  Regardless of how great and shiny and new
anyones patch is, I honestly do think its worth the time to document
it first.  The payoffs in the long run are worth it.

> > I want to be able to understand such a patch in detail, without
> > having to second guess the authors intent.
> 
> Do you know that we have a mailing list where you could simply ask?
> The answer then should be used to improve the documentation. But see,
> for me it would be much worse to lose Gaby than to have a little
> imperfect documentation in trunk. We even have more imperfection all
> around.

I really dont see it that way.  If I have a contribution, then I post
it to the list.  Give the community the chance to study it and
comment.  Such a post is almost certainly an initial release, save
trivial fixes.  It is an opertunity for everyone to contribute, to ask
questions, to engage themselves in the process.  One can propose a
patch with working code without it being literate from the start.
Nothing forbids that.  wh-sandbox and build-improvements dont
implicitly discount such a process.  Neither Gaby nor Waldek have ever
said `I dont care about suggestions regarding LP'.  The fundamental
problem, from my perspective, is that it is exceedingly rare for there
to be a public patch.  Something real that we can all comment on and
study, that we all have a vested interest in improving.

Fundamentally, what _is_ important is that when the code is ready to
go into silver, it is a documented, literate, work.  We do not need to
get that code in tommorow. This is a basic principle of the project.

> Don't you see that probably all current developers are LP believers?
> It is just a question how to arrive at an Axiom that is fully in an LP
> style.

Its not really a question.  Just write LP code for submission to
Silver.  Any steps one takes to get to that point is an individual
decision.

> Some people think that we must from now on do everything in
> proper LP style. And some people rather like to work for a while in
> the usual programming paradigm and postpone proper documenation until
> we have autoconf, hyperdoc, windows port running. *Nobody* says that
> he will not eventually document in LP style.

Its a totally classic scenario.  Write the code, and promise to
document it.  Almost invariably it turns out to be nonsense.  I would
not be surprised if the original developers of axiom entertained
exactly the same notions.  Look what that got us.

> I agree that it would be best that documentation gets done while the
> development happens, but that is *not* the main pressing part. It is
> much more important to make more people aware of Axiom and attract
> more developers. If we have 100 developer, then I totally agree that
> no patch should be admitted to trunk if it is not fully documented in
> a way Tim would like it. But until then let's just be a bit more
> relaxed.

Totally disagree.  If we cant convince the handfull of developers
currently involved, how on earth are we going to convince 100?

We need to stick to our guns and set an example.  It might even be
inspiring if we do.  Tim certainly inspired me, and thats why Im here.

> With a handfull of developers we will *never* be able to document all
> the legacy algebra code. There is simply not enough time. Let's
> attract developers first and let's preach them some LP so that they
> know what will be the vision of Axiom.

There is a huge difference between preaching and doing.

> Note, that is not a compromise to Tim's vision of having everything
> properly documented so that people can understand it. But what is the
> use of documentation where only 10 people in the world are willing to
> read it? Axiom will die without developers.

Axiom has developers, it will not die.  The hope is that effort and
patience will win out in the end.  That computational math becomes
both an art and a science.  That Axiom represents the very best of an
ever so young disipline, and one which will outlive us all.

> Look at Aldor. That's a super language, but all the other languages
> just take over the ideas of Aldor and Aldor will lose no matter how
> advanced it is. Without developers Aldor is dead. And with 10
> developers also Axiom is dead.

Aldor is dead because no one but a few privileged folk can read its
code, but even that is not entierly true.  I think Aldor has a lot of
good ideas behind it, and am trying to implement them myself.  Good
ideas always survive.

> > I believe we all have to agree that there exists a common goal.  I
> > dont think there is a fast path to an amicable result.  I have enough
> > people telling me that they want something done yesterday.  Axiom, I
> > hope, is an oasis from such expectations.
> 
> Of course there is no real time pressure. I press, because I want to
> see a well documented, well running Axiom during my lifetime. Only
> that presses to ask for more developers.

I share the same perspective. 


Cheers,
Steve