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

[Bill Page]

On 7/29/07, C Y <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> --- Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
> >
> > | Um.  I can understand the lack of seamless integration, but why
> > | would Axiom's history cause a negative reaction?
> >
> > Well, this is something one should oneself ask directly to the
> > interested people.  Do you believe Axiom's history is not a factor
> > to Tim's committment to Axiom?  The point is if you believe the
> > history can cause positive reaction (committment), it can also be
> > source of negative reaction -- some consider that they have been
> > "burnt" many times in the past.
>
> Sure, as a commercial product.  Open source is a different ballgame;
> whether for better or not is not yet established.
>

No, I don't think the people with a negative reaction to Axiom only
date from the short time that Axiom was a commercial product.

I do not agree that open source is a completely "different ballgame".
As Tim has explained even when Axiom was a research project at IBM is
was quite freely given out to those researchers who had a real
interest in it.

And even during the time that Axiom has been officially open source,
by far the majority of the new Axiom users would seem to prefer to be
able to use Axiom in essentially the same way as if it were a
commercial product. If it doesn't work rather quickly for them, then
they just look elsewhere rather than joining the project and trying to
improve it. Only a small minority are willing to do that.

> > | As for relic technology, do you mean Axiom's current Algebra
> > | algorithms or use of Lisp?  Or maybe the 1980s look of Hyperdoc
> > | and graphics?
> >
> > Almost all of those.
>
> Well, we've had the Lisp issue out many times before.  As for the
> others, I agree too - but fixing them is non-trivial.
>

But the point is that these would better be addressed *first* before
settling in to even harder to achieve long term goals like making all
of Axiom a literate program.

> > Yes, but the technology used in applied cas has evolved; algorithms
> > have been improved and Axiom is lagging two generations behind.
>
> Being developed on limited/no resources for years will do that.
>

I think most people would be willing to concede this point if they get
the feeling that something is really being done about it.

> > CAS applications to real world problem have put pressure on improving
> > the knwon algorithms.  Other CASes (mostly commercial) have managed
> > to integrate the work (improvements) of the working computational
> > sciences.
>
> Sure.  That means it's on our todo list, once we get a foundation we
> can build on.
>

What is truly wrong with the foundation on which Axiom was originally
built? The build environment inherited from the 80's and which for the
most part persists in the Axiom Gold and Silver was certainly not
consistent with what is currently considered best practice, but that
his been addressed in the build-improvements branch.

Contrary to when I started working with Axiom, I no longer consider
literate program an essential part of this foundation. I think that is
a different issue. I still believe literate programming to be a
worthwhile long term goal - especially for the the Axiom library
(Spad) code. I am just not convinced that we really know how to do it.
And I don't think this should stop the further development of Axiom
until we learn to do it right.

> > | There is more than one target audience here.
> >
> > Definitely.  Which is Axiom's?   I doubt it is the one that prefers
> > failing or poor algorithms.
>
> That seems to be a bit up in the air, or perhaps "too early to tell" -
> no one wants failing or poor algorithms, but replacing them will most
> likely come naturally as part of the literate re-write.
>

I seriously doubt that this "literate re-write" will ever really
occur. Instead it seems most likely to me that improvements will
continue to be made via bug fixes and by major new contributions by
researchers and dedicated Axiom users if there are a sufficient number
of these so that chances of someone both motivated and qualified is
sufficiently high.

> > | I think it is premature to characterize the Axiom project's output
> >
> > Indeed, Axiom has been around for only more than 2 decades.  Now, we
> > seem to be looking at a moving target of 30 years horizon.
>
> Axiom as an open source project has not existed for 2 decades, and
> working through legacy code to update/modernize/document is neither
> sexy nor quick.
>

Reading Spad code is particularly easy. That is what it was designed
to be: a highly expressive and easy to understand notation for
mathematical algorithms. In most cases when you look at Spad code and
compare it to published algorithms the connection and details of the
implementation and obvious.

> > | >   * If you're a casual user, then using Axiom is like flying a
> > | >     helicoptere to buy milk at the store next door.
> > |
> > | Very true.  Fortunately, Maxima exists for those cases.
> >
> > Riiiight.  So, who is Axiom's audience?
> > Those who are doing CAS for leaving cannot use it.  Those who are
> > casual users are encouraged to look elsewhere.
> > Amateurs?
>
> CAS developers, at the moment - those interested in what a CAS CAN be,
> rather than what they are today.  We are building the tools.  They must
> be built before they can be used.  Who our audience will eventually be
> depends entirely on what we can create.

I think this is completely the wrong attitude. It is the "If you build
it, they will come." approach. (Do you remember that movie of a decade
ago about the guy who built the baseball diamond on the middle of his
corn field? What was the title?) Even in the big wide world of the
Internet I do not think there is any reason to believe that this
approach will work.

> It is probably safe to say it
> won't be heavy duty speed critical numerical simulations (e.g. those
> who optimize down to the assembly level) and it is not clear yet
> whether a system can strive for rigor in the mathematical sense and
> remain a good "engineering/casual use CAS."  For me, the target
> audience is the audience that wants to be as sure as humanly possible
> that the answers they are getting to questions put to the CAS are
> correct mathematically.  Whether other applications follow from that
> remains to be seen.  But of course, that's just me.
>

I think you are wrong. You should take a very close look at the large
number of developers in the Sage project and the kind of (mostly
leading edge) things they are doing. People have very high
expectations for computer algebra systems these days. Afterall this is
the seventh year of the twenty first century.

Regards,
Bill Page.