About Lisp versions --
> It's slowly being untangled. GCL is moving toward ANSI,
> and most of the others are there. So the effort required
> should be less and less over time.
Apparently ANSI compliance isn't strong enough to
ensure that Lisp versions are compatible from Maxima's
point of view. It's the stuff around the edges that
matters -- how does Lisp interact with the operating
system, how does it treat files, how does it handle
packages, etc.
> If Maxima can run on two totally different systems and
> get the same mathematical result, it is a reassurance
> that there are no subtle problems with one of the lisps.
Getting the same result on two Lisps is very weak evidence.
There is a much stronger, simpler, and less aggravating
debugging method, which is to figure out what is the
right answer, and then see if Maxima produces it.
Indeed, that's how the Maxima test suite works.
> I do agree that it would be nice if the time spent
> on these issues were to go into mathematical/feature work.
I agree 100% on this point.
> But I think the best way to ensure Maxima is here
> for the long haul is to make it as portable as possible.
Essentially we are trading an ongoing time sink
(supporting multiple Lisps) for the one-time effort
which would be required if we bet on one project, in the
unlikely event that project went belly up.
What Maxima needs for the long haul is not portability,
but first and foremost, to lose the strangeness which
permeates it like the blue stuff in blue cheese, and
secondarily, to gain the features which other math packages
have; a more powerful symbolic integration routine would
get us a lot of new users. Supporting multiple Lisps is
neutral wrt the second goal, and actively working against
the first.
For what it's worth,
Robert Dodier
__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest