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

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

"Bill Page" <address@hidden> writes:

| Gaby,
| 
| On August 23, 2006 6:08 PM you wrote:
| > | > ... [symbolic computation versus computer algebra]
| > | > my point is that that distinction is largely an academic
| > | > exercise in ways we approach the subject matter, and NOT
| > | > a really deep one (though it may be given substance).
| > | 
| > | I think you are wrong.  I think Steven Watt's paper
| > | provides a very substantive example:
| > 
| > it seems we have entered the traditional phase of
| > opinion-vs-proof-by-authority.  I guess, the best we can
| > do is to postpone the discussion for more data.
| 
| I did not mention Steven Watt as an appeal to authority (or did
| you have some other authority in mind?) but I would be glad to
| continue the discussion of his paper on this subject after you
| get a chance to read it. :)

I read it; I don't know why you thought I did not :-)
As I said, we may might have to suspend the debate for more data.

[...]

| > How do you measure success?
| > 
| 
| One measure of success that makes sense to me is the number
| of people who actively contribute to the improvement of Axiom.
| Another measure is the number of people who actually use Axiom
| in their research and/or teaching. In terms of these measures
| Axiom is not (yet) a failure but I believe that we could do
| much better and I am disappointed with rate of change.


My first approximation of success is the number of users.  The number
of contributors, to me, is essentially secondary -- as long as it is
not close to zero.  

-- Gaby