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

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

C Y <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

| That helps, and being centered at a university also helps - after all,
| in one sense Axiom has very few links to academia in terms of
| sponsering/patronage.  Most of us have something else as our primary
| responsibility, so there is less intense, focused effort on Axiom. 
| Also, SAGE doesn't have to go through the process of bringing code from
| thirty years ago up to modern standards, which is a lot of work and is
| less "sexy".

How true!

| > I worry about the delay in the open source status of Aldor.
| 
| I think this is probably the biggest single holdup.  We don't have much
| serious work on SPAD code because we all think and hope it will
| eventually have to become Aldor code.

I'm starting to believe that is probably a mistake.  We should be
investing in improving the SPAD compiler.  After all, we do have an
impressive library out there to support and to improve.

[...]

| All of this uncertainty does not help Axiom in becoming a major
| "player" in either open source or academia.

For my own courses, I've been preparing materials for using Axiom as
my main vehicle for introducing students to symbolic computation.
Yesterday, I had to reconsider that decision given the many whoops to
jump through and unfavorable impression when comparedn to recent
versions of Maple or Mathematica.  Now, I'm thinking about switching
to Maple alright for this fall.  

[...]

| > I am tempted to suggest that hooking Axiom to the Sage bandwagon
| > as soon as possible might be the best idea.

I would resist the temptation to jump on the many bandwagons du jour
without more data...

[...]

| > But that makes Axiom seem subordinate

or uncertain and unfocused project.

[ rest of message I wholeheartly agree with ]

-- Gaby