Re: CAS for the "masses" (was RE: [Axiom-mail] how to calculate Ricci...)

[Ondrej Certik]

I agree with you. So SymPy is rather competing with Maxima than with Axiom.

Maybe you would like The Zen of Python (by Tim Peters), it's something
like an anthem of Python and it's actually built in the Python
interpreter :). I share this philosophy in SymPy completely:

address@hidden:~$ python
Python 2.4.4 (#2, Jan 13 2007, 17:50:26)
[GCC 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> > > import this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
> > >



Ondrej

On 3/27/07, C Y <address@hidden> wrote:
> --- Ondrej Certik <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > As a simple example - if it is not able to simplify simple powers or
> > to do a simple limit (see my older emails on that), then it's not for
> > me.
> >
> > Ondrej
>
> Sure.  Some of that is probably bugs, and some might be more subtle.
> But in theory, if it is mathematically valid than Axiom can probably be
> brought to a point where it can be done.  I suspect provisos and
> variables with type would be necessary mechanisms, but we aren't there
> yet.  Axiom took the approach (in my view the correct one) of being a
> strong system first, with convenience being built on top of the strong
> foundation.  That approach stands a chance of working in the long term,
> but obviously has convenience consequences in the short term.
>
> That's why I think both Maxima and Axiom have a place in the open
> source computer algebra world.  Maxima is very much about getting the
> job done, and does fairly well.  Axiom is about Doing It Right, and
> eventually getting to the point where the more "applied" or "casual"
> use modes might be supported as special cases.  Maxima means people
> don't have to wait, and Axiom is working on the long term viable
> approach.  It's like using a wagon to cross the US vs. building a
> railway across it.  Yes, if you only want to cross once and start
> farming you can use the wagon, but in the long run the railway will
> open up a lot more possibilities and it's worth the extra pain to build
> it.
>
> Cheers,
> CY
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> The fish are biting.
> Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
> http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php