Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom, FriCAS, forks and teeth

[C Y]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Doug Stewart <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> | Now look at the undocumented or poorly documented code and try changing it!
> | I think Tim's comments of writing for the humans that will have to
> | change- improve it, is fundamental. I gust have to look at some of
> | my code written 20 years ago to see how vitally important Tim's
> | statement is. 
> 
> It appears to me that people seem to think that disagreeing with
> Tim's dogmatic pamphlet style is disagreeing with better and well 
> documented Axiom system.  Nothing could be farther from truth.

No, or at least I don't see it that way.  I view it more as a
disagreement about method than a disagreement about the end goal.

> As a matter of fact, almost all of the existing pamphlets pass Tim's
> pamphlet test only at the syntax level.

On that point, I agree - in fact, I don't see how anyone could disagree.
  And for myself, much as I would prefer to be working on units and
dimensions, I am having to take a "from square one" approach to
understanding how the system works.  I figure as long as that must be
done anyway, I may as well try to do something useful to contribute at
that level.

>  And the ones that look
> advanced documentation look to me poorer than non-pamphletized
> documentation -- e.g. I have far less trouble reading 
> and trying to undestand SBCL source code than reading and
> understanding bookvol5 and friends and the rest of the system.

As I understand it, bookvol5 is nowhere near completion.  What is your
take on dhmatrix?  As I understand it that file is closer to a "proper"
literate document.  Or, for that matter, what about cl-web?

Cheers,
CY