Re: [Axiom-developer] SAGE, Axiom, and usage

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

"Bill Page" <address@hidden> writes:

| Gaby,
| 
| On August 23, 2006 12:13 PM you wrote:
| > ...
| > Bill Page wrote:
| > | 
| > | Chudnovsky was not making the distinction between "symbolic
| > | computation" and "computer algebra" that Steven Watt is making
| > | in the papers that I cited previously. Perhaps Gaby, you were
| > | also was using "symbolic" in this more general sense? 
| > 
| > Yes, and as a matter of fact, I'm deeply sceptical of your
| > previous assertion.
| 
| Which assertion?

  #  Gaby would like to introduce his students to "symbolic
  #  computation", *but really Axiom (and Aldor) are not very
  #  good at this -- by design.*

(emphasis is mine).

[...]

| > Furthermore, I'm unconvinced that Axiom will attract people if we
| > insist on painting it in a corner.
| >
| 
| On the contrary, I do not think I am "painting it into a corner".

what you said only reinforces the perception I have had since some
time now, from discussions on this list.

[...]

| > | I wonder what Dr. Chudnovsky would write today if asked to
| > | compare the Axiom open source project to other open source
| > | projects and the commercial counterparts?
| > 
| > you mean after Axiom has been deeply hibernating,
| 
| ??? Axiom wasn't really "hibernating" until 2001 and it became
| open source in 2003.

well, between 1995 (when I first heard of it, and later got
presentation by Stephen about A# at FRISCO workshops, and repeated
"conversion attempts" from colleagues -- mostly French you suspect) and
2002, nearly nothing  widely appreciated happened to Axiom -- contrast
that to other CAS on the market.  I call that deep hibernation; you
may call it differently. 2002 was when Tim came to Lyon putting Axiom
hard forward at the international workshop on open source CAS :-) 

| > and now has great difficulties taking again the leadership of
| > principled CAS?
| 
| Do you think Axiom ever really had a "leadership" role? 

As a *principled* CAS, yes.

That is different from being leader in terms of number of users or
sale. 

[...]

| > Unless we have gotten a time-travel machine, I don't believe what
| > is happening to Axiom today must be retroactively used to redesign
| > its past foundation.
| > 
| 
| Could you explain what you mean by "retroactively used to redesign
| its past foundation"?

My understanding of your comments is that "people tried to show Axiom
as competing symbolic computation systems, it fails.  Let's try to
present it as not having anything to do with that, by design."  I
don't believe Axiom's foundational and design principles can be
meaningfully understood that way.  I don't believe earlier failure had
to do with the fact that Axiom was presented a symbolic computation
system.  But I suspect all have our own religions and beliefs :-)

-- Gaby