On Saturday 13 September 2008 01:28:18 pm Oliver Kullmann wrote:
> 2. Adding redundant functions to Maxima will likely
> impair the conditions for other users --- just more
> confusion, more possible errors.
I am not adding reduntant functions, but something like a
compatibility layer with a very clear way to distinguish the
features in the layer. I suppose there are possibilities for
errors, but also for cross-fertilization. And if a user
complains about errors, you could answer, "don't use the
comatibility functions (anything capitalized that you
downloaded and installed separately) instead of well tested
core functions when you don't have to".
> 10 years ago I made some mathematica-experience, and I
> found it a horrible language --- all kludged together
> (though a lot).
I certainly cursed it a lot, but I did get a good bit of
work done with it, even on an over-used midrange Sun
workstation in the early 90's! I found it pretty
useful. But, I haven't used it much for years. I don't have
a copy. I prefer free software. But now I am trying to get
access to it again.
> Unfortunately there are no namespaces in Lisp/Maxima, and
> so any mathematica-related stuff will pollute the general
> namespace.
Yeah, thats too bad. Following a convention seems to be
the best choice right now. But, this isn't polluting the name
space. Its not part of Maxima. Its a packge distributed from
my website, with a naming convention very unlikely to ever
be used by Maxima.
> I would guess that good documentation, perhaps something
> especially written for mathematica-users, might be most
> useful here.
Thats a great idea. Someone should work on it.
-- John