[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: a meta name for axiom, open.axiom, fricas. was: Re: [Axiom-developer

From: M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
Subject: Re: a meta name for axiom, open.axiom, fricas. was: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [#55] Axiom doesn't run on Windows
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:33:45 -0800
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20071031)

Bill Page wrote:
On 12/20/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <address@hidden> wrote:
... There is no confusion on my machines simply because I don't
need either FriCAS or OpenAxiom -- and I haven't installed them --
and I don't intend to.

So are you arguing against Tim's point of view? If there is no
confusion then why all this concern over a name?

Bill Page.

I'm arguing in favor of a single Axiom, called Axiom. If FriCAS and OpenAxiom want to rejoin the main branch, that's one way. Another way is to ignore the other two and just use Axiom.

There are lots of things I don't put on my machines because they're not ready for prime time, and FriCAS and OpenAxiom fall into that class for a number of reasons including the potential directory name clashes. And I run "testing-level" (borderline unstable) boxes. I simply see no benefit to a recent fork of Axiom -- not enough has changed since the fork(s) to the parts of the package I really care about for me to want to spend time testing them.

Now if I find something broken in Axiom and it gets fixed, being open source, FriCAS and OpenAxiom are perfectly capable of picking it up. Or if someone puts something *useful* in one of the two, I'd take a look. I just don't think that's going to happen because of why the forks happened -- they came about for reasons other than the usefulness of the core language for applied mathematics.

In other words, "come back when you've got better math than Axiom". :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]