Re: [Axiom-developer] Lisp

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> Bill Page wrote:
> > On 3/5/08, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> >
> > > I agree to the general statement: there are many problems
> > > that Axiom can not do -- most beginers will probably give up
> > > concluding "Axiom is too hard to use" and not realize that
> > > what they want to do in not doable using Axiom.
> > I think you need to define more carefully what you mean by "axiom just
> > can't do many things mathematicians want to do" and "not doable using
> > Axiom". 
>
> I would say that from beginers point of view doable means using 2-3
> commands.  "Interpreter" functions are a middle ground.  Going to
> Spad is more like "writing program to solve the problem" than "using
> Axiom".

Exactly! I do a lot with queuing theory, Petri nets, and (timed) process 
algebras. While there are a number of special purpose packages for this 
domain, only one of them is open source, and that one is primarily 
numeric. I don't want to have to teach a CAS to do Laplace transforms, 
handle block matrices with a countably infinite number of rows and 
columns, etc. I don't know how theoretical mathematicians feel about 
this, but I for one don't have any use for a CAS that can't do these things.

Where *I* want to spend my programming time is getting these "abstract" 
solutions into some form that can be used by people other than fellow 
mathematicians.
>