On Sunday 12 April 2009 09:50:18 Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>
> > I applaud your desire to use a computer algebra system.
> > However, the project goals of Axiom clearly don't meet your needs.
>
> This is simply delusion. I object several points of Axiom, which proved
> to be wrong in practice, and yo
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Martin Rubey
wrote:
> Aleksej Saushev writes:
> It is true however that FriCAS uses LaTeX only for the mathematical
> part of the code, i.e., the spad files.
This is the case for OpenAxiom.
___
Axiom-developer maili
Aleksej Saushev writes:
> > Exactly the points you raise are the reason FriCAS exists.
> > FriCAS developers removed the literate form of files in many
> > cases.
This is a half-lie. In many instances a substantial amount of
"literal" (i.e., LaTeX) documentation was added to FriCAS. I do not
root writes:
>> I'm not going to do any work, that is rejected before planning stage.
>> It is a mere waste of time, I'm not going to live forever or wait forever,
>> even 5 years is too much.
>
> ...[snip]...
>
> Axiom is a long term project. The theme is the 30 year horizon. The
> point is to
> I'm not going to do any work, that is rejected before planning stage.
> It is a mere waste of time, I'm not going to live forever or wait forever,
> even 5 years is too much.
...[snip]...
Axiom is a long term project. The theme is the 30 year horizon. The
point is to make the code live despite
root writes:
>> > Given that the goals of OpenAxiom are directly opposed to the stated
>> > project goals of Axiom, how do you see that this difference should be
>> > resolved?
>>
>> I repeat, that from user point of view the difference between projects
>> is that one builds and another does not
> Note, that I'm not interested in your political agenda, like to Boot or
> not to Boot, or to tangle or not to tangle. I'm interested in real world
> applications, those used by real life engineers, researchers or students.
> As for now I can offer them OpenAxiom and FriCAS, but not Axiom, because
> > Given that the goals of OpenAxiom are directly opposed to the stated
> > project goals of Axiom, how do you see that this difference should be
> > resolved?
>
> I repeat, that from user point of view the difference between projects
> is that one builds and another does not. While I can build F
> > The OpenAxiom project has the exact opposite goal of writing everything
> > in boot and developing boot as a language.
>
> Alright, now that becomes more clear.
> What is common between Axiom and OpenAxiom then?
You have the sources. Do
diff -r --brief axiom openaxiom
and you'll see that
I actually sent that email prematurely last night, hence it ended with a
colon.
I said that Boot's pattern matching allowed us to get by without structured
data for the whole project. I meant to follow that up, with "but that's not
a good thing." The interpreter exposes it's internal representati
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:37 AM, root wrote:
> Since boot was written in boot we had a situation where we needed a
> running Axiom in order to build Axiom. This was also true of the
> algebra in that you needed a running system to build a running system.
A data point: OpenAxiom has more codes wr
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> And from my user point of view, Axiom should adopt either FriCAS' or
> OpenAxiom's build system, whatever is closer, or develop similar one,
A while ago, I rewrote Axiom's build system to use Autoconf
and restructured the Makefiles so tha
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Scott Morrison
wrote:
> As Dick Jenks explained it to me when I joined the Axiom project in 1984,
> the Boot language was intended as a boot-strap step to eventually implement
> the entire system in the Spad language. The idea was first to convert to a
> language
Hello!
d...@axiom-developer.org writes:
>> As I understand it, you could easily prevent forking by pushing Axiom to
>> user more actively, it could have the functionality of OpenAxiom or FriCAS,
>> but it has lost the momentum. From user point of view the confusion is
>> of no importance as lon
> As Dick Jenks explained it to me when I joined the Axiom project in 1984,
> the Boot language was intended as a boot-strap step to eventually implement
> the entire system in the Spad language. The idea was first to convert to a
> language that was syntactically similar to Spad, then convert it
As Dick Jenks explained it to me when I joined the Axiom project in 1984,
the Boot language was intended as a boot-strap step to eventually implement
the entire system in the Spad language. The idea was first to convert to a
language that was syntactically similar to Spad, then convert it to actua
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM, wrote:
>> As I understand it, you could easily prevent forking by pushing Axiom to
>> user more actively, it could have the functionality of OpenAxiom or FriCAS,
>> but it has lost the momentum. From user point of view the confusion is
>> of no importance as long
> As I understand it, you could easily prevent forking by pushing Axiom to
> user more actively, it could have the functionality of OpenAxiom or FriCAS,
> but it has lost the momentum. From user point of view the confusion is
> of no importance as long as one of fors works and another one does not.
TimDaly writes:
> On Apr 5, 7:18 am, ferrat wrote:
>> I installed Axiom but can't graph because at the end there is an error
>> message about something in the /root directory.
>>
>> Then I tried OpenAxiom and this version works, so I'm staying with OpenAxiom.
>>
>> What's the difference between
> It is a bit hard to clearly describe differences between the forks,
> because for the end user it is currently nearly invisible.
Ralf,
I'm not sure that this is true anymore.
Axiom has been concentrating heavily on documentation and the
results are visible primarily to the end user.
Axiom n
One of the fundamental problems with forking is that people can be
confused about the original projects and the forks. It is important
that this does not happen. The Axiom project is the original project.
OpenAxiom is a fork started around the September 2007 time frame.
Right and that is clearly
On Apr 5, 7:18 am, ferrat wrote:
> I installed Axiom but can't graph because at the end there is an error
> message about something in the /root directory.
>
> Then I tried OpenAxiom and this version works, so I'm staying with OpenAxiom.
>
> What's the difference between Axiom and OpenAxiom?
One
22 matches
Mail list logo
