--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As I understand it, bookvol5 is nowhere near completion. What is
> > your take on dhmatrix? As I understand it that file is closer to a
> > "proper" literate document. Or, for that matter, what about
> > cl-web?
>
> I think dhmatrix as a literate d
On 7/12/07, C Y wrote:
...
Gaby wrote:
> And the ones that look
> advanced documentation look to me poorer than non-pamphletized
> documentation -- e.g. I have far less trouble reading
> and trying to undestand SBCL source code than reading and
> understanding bookvol5 and friends and the rest o
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Doug Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | Now look at the undocumented or poorly documented code and try changing it!
> | I think Tim's comments of writing for the humans that will have to
> | change- improve it, is fundamental. I gust have to look at some
Doug Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| Now look at the undocumented or poorly documented code and try changing it!
| I think Tim's comments of writing for the humans that will have to
| change- improve it, is fundamental. I gust have to look at some of
| my code written 20 years ago to
Jay Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| ...
| > | In the announcement of the fork, Waldek quotes Tim as saying
| > | that literate programming was a primary goal of the Axiom project, and
| > | if somebody wanted to get somewhere faster that they s
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> | In the announcement of the fork, Waldek quotes Tim as saying
> | that literate programming was a primary goal of the Axiom project, and
> | if somebody wanted to get somewhere faster that they should fork.
>
> I believe it takes an extraordinary
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
| Waldek Hebisch wrote:
|
| > So while old algorithm
| > remains correct, a superior one may be invented and replace
| > the old.
|
| Sure. And I would agree with that. I was thinking more along the lines
| of the build system, the interpreter, client-server com
Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> So while old algorithm
> remains correct, a superior one may be invented and replace
> the old.
Sure. And I would agree with that. I was thinking more along the lines
of the build system, the interpreter, client-server communication, etc.
I would expect the mathematics
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/11/07, C Y wrote:
> > OK. So then, how DO we work with mathematics? (I don't expect an
> > answer - but it's still a reasonable question, unless one wants to
> > throw up one's hands. A universal treatment (whatever that means)
> > might not be p
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
|
| --- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > I believe that the core of the system would have to change, evolved,
| > rewritten, rethinked.
| > The future -- at least the near future -- is in parallel/distributed
| > computa
On 7/11/07, C Y wrote:
> But the goals of Principia Mathematica
> (a universal treatment of mathematics) has been shown by
> mathematicians themselves (e.g. Geodel's theorem) not to be
> attainable even in principle.
OK. So then, how DO we work with mathematics? (I don't expect an
answer - but
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Jay Belanger wrote:
|
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| ...
| > I believe it takes an extraordinary amount of both stretch and imagination
|
| It requires neither; it only requires reading and paying attention.
`reading more' into what is actually written and
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
| --- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > Multicore are no longer supercomputers myths you would find in
| > highly financed National Labs. They are the reality today.
|
| Sure.
|
| > If you order a machine from Dell, the probability that you
| >
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Jay Belanger wrote:
|
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > Jay Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | ...
| > | > But literate programming is not really the problem. Rather I think the
| > | > problem as u
--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Multicore are no longer supercomputers myths you would find in
> highly financed National Labs. They are the reality today.
Sure.
> If you order a machine from Dell, the probability that you
> get a multicore is very high. How do you we wisel
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
|
| --- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > I believe that the core of the system would have to change, evolved,
| > rewritten, rethinked.
| > The future -- at least the near future -- is in parallel/distributed
| > computations with multicores expec
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would say that this goal is certainly very disconnected from
> reality. I think comparing computer typesetting (TeX) to computer
> algebra (in general) is rather like comparing arithmetic to
> mathematics (in general). We know pretty well how to do type
--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe that the core of the system would have to change, evolved,
> rewritten, rethinked.
> The future -- at least the near future -- is in parallel/distributed
> computations with multicores expected to grow exponentially. We
> will have to r
On 7/11/07, C Y wrote:
...
THAT is the kind of project I want to work on. The TeX of computer
algebra systems. Am I disconnected from reality? Possibly. But we
have a wide variety of commercial systems and even free alternatives
like Maxima that are addressing real problems today. Axiom's co
C Y wrote:
> --- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (1) As a law, useful software evolve; otherwise they die.
>
> Certainly. If actual new ideas appear, they should be incorporated. I
> would hope that these would be in areas like new mathematics, new
> output formats, new graphics
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
| > (1) As a law, useful software evolve; otherwise they die.
|
| Certainly. If actual new ideas appear, they should be incorporated. I
| would hope that these would be in areas like new mathematics, new
| output formats, new graphics backends, etc - i.e. change
--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The notion that Axiom would need just to be written once and never
> rewritten again is -- I'm afraid -- completely deconnected from
> reality, and reflects an amateurish approach to software that
> saddens me.
This may indeed be amateurish, but a
Jay Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| ...
| > But literate programming is not really the problem. Rather I think the
| > problem as usual, is just the way in which decisions are (and are not)
| > being made in the project.
|
| One reason for the fork
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 07/10/2007 04:22 AM, Bill Page wrote:
| > On 7/9/07, C Y wrote:
| >> ... Literate programming is not a mainstream methodology (in my opinion)
| >> because few developers are willing to accept the long lead times and hard
| >> work of researching the n
The notion that Axiom would need just to be written once and never
rewritten again is -- I'm afraid -- completely deconnected from
reality, and reflects an amateurish approach to software that
saddens me.
(1) As a law, useful software evolve; otherwise they die.
(2) Axiom is to support computa
On 7/10/07, didier deshommes wrote:
2007/7/10, Bill Page:
> While we are dragging this thread further into the merits/demerits of
> literate programming, I thought I would mention one alternative to
Speaking of liteerate programming, I stumbled accros this blog entry
about the (partial) failures
2007/7/10, Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
While we are dragging this thread further into the merits/demerits of
literate programming, I thought I would mention one alternative to
Speaking of liteerate programming, I stumbled accros this blog entry
about the (partial) failures of the literate p
While we are dragging this thread further into the merits/demerits of
literate programming, I thought I would mention one alternative to
literate programming that seems in comparison to be quite mainstream:
using visualization to improve the comprehensibility of software. See
for example:
http://
Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> On 07/10/2007 04:22 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>> On 7/9/07, C Y wrote:
>>> ... Literate programming is not a mainstream methodology (in my opinion)
>>> because few developers are willing to accept the long lead times and
>>> hard
>>> work of researching the necessary background to
On 07/10/2007 04:22 AM, Bill Page wrote:
On 7/9/07, C Y wrote:
... Literate programming is not a mainstream methodology (in my opinion)
because few developers are willing to accept the long lead times and hard
work of researching the necessary background to make a good literate
document. ...
L
Bill Page wrote:
> On 7/9/07, C Y wrote:
>> ... Literate programming is not a mainstream methodology (in my opinion)
>> because few developers are willing to accept the long lead times and hard
>> work of researching the necessary background to make a good literate
>> document. ...
>
> I think you
On 7/9/07, C Y wrote:
... Literate programming is not a mainstream methodology (in my opinion)
because few developers are willing to accept the long lead times and hard
work of researching the necessary background to make a good literate
document. ...
I think you are absolutely right about that
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> But literate programming is not really the problem. Rather I think the
> problem as usual, is just the way in which decisions are (and are not)
> being made in the project.
One reason for the fork was to be able to put off documentation, and
many peop
Bill Page wrote:
> Only one Axiom developer (Martin Rubey) has said publicly that he
> would probably quite the Axiom project but I am optimistic that in
> fact he will continue his interest in Axiom one way or the other. I do
> not see any more division now between the Axiom project and the FirCA
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could you give them right away without looking them up somewhere? Then
> look them up. Where would you search?
Everything is a pamphlet. Submit diff -Nuar patches to the list.
Anything else?
Perhaps these items are missing from the FAQ? As always, pa
I find the whole thing odd. I thought Tim was pretty clear from the
beginning on what the goals of the Axiom project were,
Could you give them right away without looking them up somewhere? Then
look them up. Where would you search?
and it seems as if many in the community hopped on board but
On 7/9/07, Jay Belanger wrote:
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> On 7/8/07, you wrote:
>> So I go away for an internet-free weekend, and what do I find when I come
>> back? A fork of Axiom with its own name, and people on the mailgroup baring
>> their teeth at each other in a most u
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> On 7/8/07, you wrote:
>> So I go away for an internet-free weekend, and what do I find when I come
>> back? A fork of Axiom with its own name, and people on the mailgroup baring
>> their teeth at each other in a most unseemly manner. So, so, fork awa
Alasdair,
On 7/8/07, you wrote:
So I go away for an internet-free weekend, and what do I find when I come
back? A fork of Axiom with its own name, and people on the mailgroup baring
their teeth at each other in a most unseemly manner. So, so, fork away...
but what I want to know is - where doe
So I go away for an internet-free weekend, and what do I find when I come
back? A fork of Axiom with its own name, and people on the mailgroup baring
their teeth at each other in a most unseemly manner. So, so, fork away...
but what I want to know is - where does this leave me, a common-or-garde
40 matches
Mail list logo
