I should probably stay out of this discussion but I am inclined to agree with Waldek. Given the remarkable degree of progress in both FriCAS and OpenAxiom I no longer have any great objection to having 3 flavors of Axiom to choose from. For those following both developments the divergence is well documented and often interesting. Having a choice is a good thing. I continue to use both and Aldor too.
Bill. On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > ... > More generally, having two (or more) pieces of code which are doing > _exactly_ the same thing makes little sense -- effort is duplicated > for no gain. In other words either merge the projects or allow > them to go independetly each in their direction. Concerning > merge, IMO merging back with Axiom is out of question -- the > project go in too different directions (one trivial (but easy > to understand) example beeing that I spent several months > removing trash from FriCAS while Axiom at the same time added > more trash). Concerning OpenAxiom, I think that differences > are much smaller. But we would have to get consensus in > tens (if not hundreds) issus like the current change to > underscore handling. And statements like 'this will be a > forever incompatibility with OpenAxiom' does not make me > optimistic that attempt to merge would succeed. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en.
