Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Axiom trunk failure

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

root <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

| most people either use axiom or they don't. very, very
| few people will make changes. thus we who make changes
| have a responsibility to maintain the quality of the system. 

I concur with that assessment.

| i'm applying personal standards here but i do not believe
| we should release anything that isn't the very best we can do.

Fully agreed.  

We should also not forget the conventional wisdom that the best is the
enemy of good.  

| and it should be simple to install, work properly, be fully
| documented, well tested, and proven as correct as we can.

Again fully agreed.

| this is computational mathematics, not word processing.

some may disagree :-)

| it's fine to do anything we want in the silver branch
| but the golden version should be as close to perfect
| as we can make it.

That is understood.  In fact, I hope you don't think of the silver

[...]

| it's quite possible for you to make a major system change
| by integrating the windows changes back into the main stream.
| you could get it building cross-platform and post patches.
| we should be able to just type 'AXIOM=.../windows' ; make
| and get a working windows version.

we should just be able to type "./configure; make make install"
and have it working.  Expect that soon for Unix-like systems!
(And I hope it will work for Cygwin-based systems too.)

[...]

| i've joined axiom to the numerical mathematics consortium
| (http://www.nmconsortium.org/FldRte/?id=72&page=Associate+Members)
| because i have an interest in recovering the numerical library
| facility for axiom. i have rewritten the BLAS library into literate
| form and have gotten permission from a BLAS person to use his research
| work as documentation for the routines. i'm in the process of
| documenting the BLAS code now. when it completes i'll release a
| numeric library for axiom that is literate BLAS. then i'll move on to
| the next numerical piece. along the way i'm learning about sensitivity
| analysis, methods of graphing branch cuts, etc. and trying to add what
| i've learned to the documentation for the code.

One way of getting people involved is to, say, list those projects on
the Axiom web-site as "open projects" or something like that.  
If we must be speaking from experience, that has been productive for
GCC.  One man trying to do everything "in secret" is just not going to
work.  If you have dreams for Axiom (and you do!), please write up and
post it to the Axiom web-site; eventually you'll get contributions from
people.

| for me, axiom opens up whole worlds of interesting work.
| i'm not trying to be a one-man show but i don't see other patches.

yes, but how much of those potential interesting work have you
actively advertised on Axiom website?  I'm not saying that the magic
cure, but it does work for GCC for example.

| i'm amazed that no-one else seems to see the opportunities.
| or if they do then i'm puzzled why they don't exploit them.
| anybody can do anything with axiom. 

Yes, but it takes time for people to contribute.  You should be
patient.  Not intended to to shock you, but do you think Axiom is as
widely known as the M&M?  Were I work it is mostly some mathematicians
curiosity and I do know it is not the only place where I've seen that
sentiment.  We first need to get Axiom better known than just Tim's
dream.  We need to get it to "the mass" -- I hate that word.  No
matter how wonderful Axiom is, you are not going to see much
contribution if it is not made widely available and known.
You already know this, but we should not forget that "software
building" contributes exactly zero when it comes to tenure.  When
people feel like they have to invest lot into Axiom development before
getting the "interesting bits" out they will put it in their task
queues with lower priority.