Re: [Axiom-developer] literate programming and Claerbout's Insight

[Alasdair McAndrew]

It may be that the negative views of Axiom are simply due to Axiom
being very poorly (read "not at all") marketed - there are no
elementary books about the use of Axiom, and if you go to the Axiom
website, it is hard to find introductory beginner's or tutorial
articles.  Contrast this last with Maxima - at the Maxima website
there are quite a few links to tutorials, which makes Maxima seem in
the realm of usability by beginners or casual users.

Another problem - which I see as major - is that there is no native
windows version with documentation (HyperDoc) and graphics.  This is
not a problem for me personally (I use linux) but I believe it is a
problem in having Axiom more widely used.  Again, compare this with
Maxima, where under windows there is the pleasant wxMaxima interface.

I am testing out Axiom this semester with a cryptography class; in
fact I am preparing lab sheets using both Axiom and Maxima,  and I'm
letting the students decide which they'd like to use.  The idea is
that the students can download the software to use at home, which is
not the case with Maple, for which my Department has a limited
license.

I have indicated my willingness to write a few expository articles
about Maxima and Axiom for the Australian Mathematical Society; when I
have them done I'll let y'all know.  I would welcome any suggestions
about nice topics to include.

Now - back to cooking dinner!

cheers,
Alasdair

On 29 Jul 2007 00:32:11 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | Axiom has the opportunity to be the base of computational mathematics.
>
> When it manages to meet the needs of the working computational
> mathematicians.  It cannot do that by building self-made ghetto
> with an autistic attitute of the workers.
>
> I have spoken to many people at SNC/PASCO '07.  It is incredible how
> the two factors:
>
>   (1) Axiom's history
>   (2) lack of seamless integration to working computational
>       mathematicians's development environment and insistance on
>       relic technology
>
> generate strong negative reactions.
>
> We can write diatribes and pamphlets against commmercial systems and
> library approches all we want, but Axiom has a hard convincing task
> before it, and proving passe techniques is not going to convince
> anyone when nobody is interested in or using passe techniques.
>
> Take a look at recent research papers and have a closer look at what
> people are using, are developing, what they think is the future trend
> of the field.
>
>
> I have heard the following (friendly) characterization of Axiom in the
> last couple of days:
>
>   * If you're doing computer algebra for leaving, then:
>       (i) Axiom lacks supports in many key areas;
>      (ii) most of the Axiom algorithms are a couple of generations
>           behind;
>
>   * If you're a casual user, then using Axiom is like flying a
>     helicoptere to buy milk at the store next door.
>
>
> With the inclusion of standard disclaimer about analogy, think about
> the above.
>
> -- Gaby
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Axiom-developer mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
>