[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Axiom-developer] foreign concepts
From: |
Martin Rubey |
Subject: |
Re: [Axiom-developer] foreign concepts |
Date: |
Sun, 3 Oct 2004 10:03:47 +0000 |
Dear Bill,
first of all: you are doing a wonderful job.
second: I also thought about advertising axiom, BUT, from some experience I had
with close collegs, I am absolutely sure that the following things should be
done before:
* The known math-bugs should be corrected or at least workarounds provided.
We are in pretty good shape here. From those bugs I *know*, the following two
are the only ones I'd consider serious: #9217 and #10530. However, there are
workarounds for both, so I wouldn't consider them as a show stopper.
* editing pamphlets via MathAction should work.
It seems that we are in good shape here, too. (I think this is a great
feature)
* Aldor should work as compiler for Axiom
Rationale: We could attract (and join) the Aldor community here. Furthermore,
I think that people would gain confidence, since Aldor is probably considered
more stable than spad.
Camm, if you are reading this, maybe you can help?
* Windows port.
Don't know anything about this.
I think we could advertise in the following communities:
* Math and Computeralgebra (via PlanetMath, newsgroups, special math portals I
don't know by heart, groups like the RISC in Linz)
* Lisp (a CMUCL/SBCL port would be nice. I think some work has been done here
already)
* LateX and TeXmacs (why not. MathAction and the pamphlet project is related to
LaTeX)
* emacs. Yes, I think we should make as much noise as possible.
* MuPAD-combinat. Ask them for cooperation, I know that some of them are
interested.
* Maxima
> More broadly speaking, I think the Axiom project as a whole
> could use more PR. I think there are some quickly evolving
> ways to do this on the Internet ranging from being mentioned
> in popular blogs to an article in a part-paper / part-electronic
> trade magazine. But someone has to step up to the task of
> preparing the equivalent of "press notices" etc. We might
> worry that "we are not ready yet" for such publication, but
> on the other hand one of the reasons we are not ready yet
> could well be *because* of the lack of publication.
>
> One of the reasons for my reacting quickly to the possibility
> of adding Reduce to MathAction was the thought that sharing
> the available audience might be beneficial to both. Of course,
> as we say on the FrontPage of MathAction this potentially
> extends to other computer algebra systems as well. I have
> not seen many comments pro or con about this strategy.
I think it was *very* clever. I think it would be clever to add Maxima, too,
But one thing after the other.
Thanks again,
Martin