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

[Stephen Wilson]

Hello Gaby,

Is it your contention that Axiom should be more devoted to the
perpetual task of meeting the common consensus on what qualifies as
`state of the art', as opposed to the perpetual task of trying to
redefine the meaning of the term?

I can understand that having a CAS today which working mathematicians
can use to push forward the frontiers of their own research is a very
valuable thing.  I just don't quite understand why CAS developers
cannot push forward themselves simultaneously.

Or perhaps you are not trying to say such things?

If Axiom is not moving forward, why?  Because of `archaic' technology?
Autistic developers?  Ghettos?  I would be very interested in some
concrete proposals to remedy the situation, if it exists, ASAP.

You have mentioned a bunch of other faults too, like Axioms history
and the impact that has on perception.  How are we to remedy this?
Perhaps the answers to my previous paragraph suffice?

What are we going to do about the `two generation' gap between Axiom's
algorithms and those available today?  This is one of the questions I
am hoping to help answer by the compiler work I am doing.  A robust
compiler will go a long way, I hope.  I might be able to update/add a
few domains to the algebra, but unfortunately I do not have the skill
set to make an appreciable dent in the problem.

At the moment I see various people with various sets of skills
contributing in whatever way they can -- all of whom have good
intentions.  How are we to ensure that this does not damage the
project further in the eyes of the wider community of experts?


Take care,
Steve