Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom, FriCAS, forks and teeth

[C Y]

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 FirCAS
> project than there already was within the Axiom project before the
> fork was officially declared.

That is my sense as well.

>> I find the whole thing odd.  I thought Tim was pretty clear from the
>> beginning on what the goals of the Axiom project were, and it seems as
>> if many in the community hopped on board but really didn't like the
>> goals.

That thought has occurred to me as well.

>> I thought that the literate CAS approach was very exciting,
>> and made it stand out quite a bit to me; a non-literate Axiom wouldn't
>> have nearly the appeal.

Absolutely.  I see no reason to do another CAS unless some effort is
made to give it merits that are unique.  The Axiom project, to me, holds
that promise.

> Well speaking for just myself, I am no less interested now in literate
> programming and how this can be applied to CAS then I was when I
> started with the Axiom project. I just think that 5 years is long
> enough to spend on the current approach to conclude that it has been a
> failure. It appears that there are valid reasons why Knuth-style
> literate programming is not now a mainstream programming methodology
> and these reasons apply just as much to Axiom as any other project.

I don't agree, personally, which I think might be the core of the
difference in opinions.  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.  In fairness, most
situations don't need programs intended to last indefinitely, either -
or rather, the effort to develop such a program isn't justified or
supported by the circumstances.  Axiom, because it is intending to
represent something that is essentially timeless (mathematics) can and
should take a very long term view.  In my view the time needed to learn
the necessary mathematics (particularly for newcomers) is only slightly
increased by writing a pamphlet - indeed it is a good way to organize
one's thinking.

> 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.

I would term it a conflict between contradictory objectives - both
valid, but neither compatible with the other in these early stages.
Doing a literate system from the ground up, and making the attempt to do
the Right Thing at all stages, will not produce a quickly working
program.  This is acceptable to some, not to others.  I view neither
position as calling for hostility.

>> > There is no reason to think that the Axiom project is going to
>> > disappear
>>
>> I don't think so, either, but the chances that it will are greater
>> than they were before.
>>
> 
> Nonsense. Forks have occurred in many very successful open source projects.

I think Bill pegged it when he said that there isn't any more division
now than already existed "de-facto" in the project.

Remember, there is nothing that stops either project from using the
efforts of the other project, when the goals of each can benefit.  (So
long as the licensing remains compatible, of course.) People would have
gone in various directions regardless - this way we can do so without
spending time duking it out over the project goals.  Eventually, both
projects should get to the point where the MATH is what it's all about,
and when both reach that stage I expect things will be calmer.

Tim had the right idea.  Let's stop worrying, support both projects
according to our goals, wish both well, and get back to coding/writing.
 For me, that's back to asdf-literate.  (Yay, working computer...)

Cheers,
CY