On 30 Jul 2007 01:04:32 -0400, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>
> Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I would like them to use Axiom as a vehicule of choice, so that we
> > don't have to wait two generations before finding hobbyists that
> > translate algorithms passe or or no interest to Axiom
On 7/29/07, Jocelyn Guidry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Would the Fricas project better suit your needs and vision for an open
> source CAS? If not, why?
>
Yes, from a technical point of view FriCAS currently does better suit
my needs for a ScratchPad-like CAS because of improvements in FriCAS
Hi Gaby,
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like them to use Axiom as a vehicule of choice, so that we
> don't have to wait two generations before finding hobbyists that
> translate algorithms passe or or no interest to Axiom.
I believe I understand the overall point of your r
Jocelyn Guidry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gaby,
|
| Would the Fricas project better suit your needs and vision for an
| open source CAS? If not, why?
Borrowing a metaphor from a friend, it is like trying to get five cars
to California with only four drivers; standard disclaimer included.
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
|
| --- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > | > Currently, Axiom isn't. But if its proponents are convinced that
| > | > they do should their best to chase away "novices", then the
| > system i
--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> | > Currently, Axiom isn't. But if its proponents are convinced that
> | > they do should their best to chase away "novices", then the
> system is
> | > doomed to premature death.
> |
> | I don't s
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
[...]
| > Currently, Axiom isn't. But if its proponents are convinced that
| > they do should their best to chase away "novices", then the system is
| > doomed to premature death.
|
| I don't see that we are chasing away novices - we ARE setting goals
| that are
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
[...]
| How does noticing this help the situation? Are new users more likely
| to join in and help improve the project when they get the impression
| that the system `just works'?
On first order, yes. I look at other systems, such as GCC, linux, GDB,
Gaby,
Would the Fricas project better suit your needs and vision for an open source
CAS? If not, why?
I also pose that question to Bill Page.
Just curious,
J.G.
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. J
--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> for many, that is not a practical difference -- since they are
> already using commercial systems.
For many, yes. If functionality is all that is important and the
budget is there, commercial systems are the current obvious choice -
that's why t
Hi Bill,
Just trying in these posts to get a few concrete suggestions on how
the problems raised can be solved.
[...]
> ... the majority of the new Axiom users would seem to prefer to be
> able to use Axiom in essentially the same way as if it were a
> commercial product. If it doesn't work rath
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not agree that open source is a completely "different ballgame".
> As Tim has explained even when Axiom was a research project at IBM is
> was quite freely given out to those researchers who had a real
> interest in it.
Well, I can't speak for othe
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
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
|
| --- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
| >
| > | Sure, as a commercial product. Open source is a different
| > | ballgame;
| >
| > What are the concrete differences?
|
| For one thing, there is no legal proble
--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
>
> | Sure, as a commercial product. Open source is a different
> | ballgame;
>
> What are the concrete differences?
For one thing, there is no legal problem with fixing problems yourself
and distributing the re
Martin,
Normally I wouldn't mention this as an on-list post but
I spent the last two weeks rearranging Axiom so people can add
algebra code to the system. I've been using your algebra as the
test case for this change. Like all test cases this work has been
done one step at a time. Now it appe
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| I think you are wrong. You should take a very close look at the large
| number of developers in the Sage project and the kind of (mostly
| leading edge) things they are doing.
This is a very good point.
I'm very impressed by the diligence with which peopl
On 7/29/07, C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 s
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
| Sure, as a commercial product. Open source is a different ballgame;
What are the concrete differences?
The algorithms have not gotten better, for example. The documentation
is no really better than what they had before; windows support is worse.
[...]
| > |
--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. D
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 committme
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Alasdair McAndrew wrote:
| Another problem - which I see as major - is that there is no native
| windows version with documentation (HyperDoc) and graphics.
I agree.
-- Gaby
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Alasdair McAndrew wrote:
| It may be that the negative views of Axiom are simply due to Axiom
| being very poorly (read "not at all") marketed - there are no
| elementary books about the use of Axiom, and if you go to the Axiom
| website, it is hard to find introductory beginn
--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | Axiom has the opportunity to be the base of computational
> mathematics.
>
> When it manages to meet the needs of the working computational
> mathematicians. It cannot do that by building self-made ghe
It may be that the negative views of Axiom are simply due to Axiom
being very poorly (read "not at all") marketed - there are no
elementary books about the use of Axiom, and if you go to the Axiom
website, it is hard to find introductory beginner's or tutorial
articles. Contrast this last with Max
25 matches
Mail list logo
