Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: A modest proposal

[Ralf Hemmecke]

> > I wait for Gaby to submit a patch. I think that will be the better 
> > road than simply switch to wh-sandbox and make some people angry.
> > We should stay together as a community. Please.
>
> I totally agree.  All I hope for is that the patch is documented and 
> is in keeping with the clearly stated goals of the project.

It would be super good if the patch is properly documented, but that is
*not* my priority. Gaby is certainly willing to improve his autoconf
work with documentation when it is in trunk. How come that people seem
to think that Gaby is not committed to LP?

> I want to be able to understand such a patch in detail, without
> having to second guess the authors intent.

Do you know that we have a mailing list where you could simply ask?
The answer then should be used to improve the documentation. But see, 
for me it would be much worse to lose Gaby than to have a little 
imperfect documentation in trunk. We even have more imperfection all around.

Don't you see that probably all current developers are LP believers?
It is just a question how to arrive at an Axiom that is fully in an LP 
style. Some people think that we must from now on do everything in 
proper LP style. And some people rather like to work for a while in the 
usual programming paradigm and postpone proper documenation until we 
have autoconf, hyperdoc, windows port running. *Nobody* says that he 
will not eventually document in LP style.

I agree that it would be best that documentation gets done while the 
development happens, but that is *not* the main pressing part. It is 
much more important to make more people aware of Axiom and attract more 
developers. If we have 100 developer, then I totally agree that no patch 
should be admitted to trunk if it is not fully documented in a way Tim 
would like it. But until then let's just be a bit more relaxed.

With a handfull of developers we will *never* be able to document all 
the legacy algebra code. There is simply not enough time. Let's attract 
developers first and let's preach them some LP so that they know what 
will be the vision of Axiom.

Note, that is not a compromise to Tim's vision of having everything 
properly documented so that people can understand it. But what is the 
use of documentation where only 10 people in the world are willing to 
read it? Axiom will die without developers.

Look at Aldor. That's a super language, but all the other languages just 
take over the ideas of Aldor and Aldor will lose no matter how advanced 
it is. Without developers Aldor is dead. And with 10 developers also 
Axiom is dead.

> I believe we all have to agree that there exists a common goal.  I 
> dont think there is a fast path to an amicable result.  I have enough
> people telling me that they want something done yesterday.  Axiom, I
> hope, is an oasis from such expectations.

Of course there is no real time pressure. I press, because I want to see 
a well documented, well running Axiom during my lifetime. Only that 
presses to ask for more developers.

Ralf