Re: [Axiom-developer] literate programming and Claerbout's Insight

[C Y]

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
> 
> | Um.  I can understand the lack of seamless integration, but why
> | would Axiom's history cause a negative reaction?
> 
> Well, this is something one should oneself ask directly to the
> interested people.  Do you believe Axiom's history is not a factor
> to Tim's committment to Axiom?  The point is if you believe the
> history can cause positive reaction (committment), it can also be
> source of negative reaction -- some consider that they have been
> "burnt" many times in the past.

Sure, as a commercial product.  Open source is a different ballgame;
whether for better or not is not yet established.

> | As for relic technology, do you mean Axiom's current Algebra
> | algorithms or use of Lisp?  Or maybe the 1980s look of Hyperdoc
> | and graphics?
> 
> Almost all of those.

Well, we've had the Lisp issue out many times before.  As for the
others, I agree too - but fixing them is non-trivial.

> Yes, but the technology used in applied cas has evolved; algorithms
> have been improved and Axiom is lagging two generations behind.

Being developed on limited/no resources for years will do that.

> CAS applications to real world problem have put pressure on improving
> the knwon algorithms.  Other CASes (mostly commercial) have managed 
> to integrate the work (improvements) of the working computational
> sciences.

Sure.  That means it's on our todo list, once we get a foundation we
can build on.

> | There is more than one target audience here.
> 
> Definitely.  Which is Axiom's?   I doubt it is the one that prefers 
> failing or poor algorithms.

That seems to be a bit up in the air, or perhaps "too early to tell" -
no one wants failing or poor algorithms, but replacing them will most
likely come naturally as part of the literate re-write.

> | I think it is premature to characterize the Axiom project's output
> 
> Indeed, Axiom has been around for only more than 2 decades.  Now, we
> seem to be looking at a moving target of 30 years horizon.

Axiom as an open source project has not existed for 2 decades, and
working through legacy code to update/modernize/document is neither
sexy nor quick.

> | >   * If you're a casual user, then using Axiom is like flying a
> | >     helicoptere to buy milk at the store next door.
> | 
> | Very true.  Fortunately, Maxima exists for those cases.
> 
> Riiiight.  So, who is Axiom's audience?  
> Those who are doing CAS for leaving cannot use it.  Those who are
> casual users are encouraged to look elsewhere.
> Amateurs?

CAS developers, at the moment - those interested in what a CAS CAN be,
rather than what they are today.  We are building the tools.  They must
be built before they can be used.  Who our audience will eventually be
depends entirely on what we can create.  It is probably safe to say it
won't be heavy duty speed critical numerical simulations (e.g. those
who optimize down to the assembly level) and it is not clear yet
whether a system can strive for rigor in the mathematical sense and
remain a good "engineering/casual use CAS."  For me, the target
audience is the audience that wants to be as sure as humanly possible
that the answers they are getting to questions put to the CAS are
correct mathematically.  Whether other applications follow from that
remains to be seen.  But of course, that's just me.

Cheers,
CY


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, 
photos & more. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC