RE : crazy run-time fluctuations (mostly super-slow) -- a bit more data

Robert Dodier <robert.dodier at gmail.com> wrote:

   On 10/22/11, Steve Haflich <smh at franz.com> wrote:
   
   > It would be silly to waste the time of members of the maxima
   > list to compose explanations of what is well described in the ANS for
   > Common Lisp.
   
   With all due respect, there certainly isn't anything silly about it.
   Of course, everyone is free to ignore any request that doesn't
   interest them.

Huh?  I did _not_ ignore the request.  I responded, giving information
where to find the needed information.

Unfortunately, I miswrote the function name copy-random-state instead of
make-random-state.  There are examples on the make-random-state
documentation page which directly address Olivier's apparent
misunderstanding.  (Olivier, please look again.)  What would be silly, I
repeat, is for others to spend time writing new explanatory material
when there already exist good references.  My point is that Olivier
should know about those references and consult them first.  That's more
efficient both for him and for everyone else.

But Robert, your response gives me an opening to flame a little about
Maxima.  (Anyone with any taste should stop reading now.)  About forty
years ago I attended that first large public lecture by Joel Moses in
MIT room 10-250 which exposed the Macsyma project to the larger
community.  (I suspect rjf was present as well, but I did not become
acquainted with him until fifteen years later.)  I had previously worked
on IBM's FORMAC a few years, so the much-greater potential of MACSYMA
was _exciting_!  But we all know what a mess MIT and Symbolics and DOE
eventually made of it.

That's all ancient history, but I have a modern issue.  The language of
MACSYMA/MAXIMA grew up about 40 years ago.  The start of "computer
science" was only about 55 years ago.  (This is defined arbitrarily as
the time the first human sat up from Vonnegut's primordial slime
(q.v. _Cat's Cradle_) and said "Wait!  I am not a mathematician.  I am a
COMPUTER SCIENTIST!")  I'm a rather inadequate mathematician, more a
computer linguist, but my observation is that too much of the turbulence
in current Maxima usage derives from the specious syntax, scoping, and
semantics in the Maxima language.  Computer technology has learned a lot
about effective syntax and semantics of computer languages in the past
2/3 of its history, but Maxima has not, being frozen in time.  Now, the
Macsyma language was properly designed to be comfortable to
mathematician and engineers, but that design has not aged well.  If I
were to give advice to the Maxima community (of which I hardly consider
myself a member) I would say that reconsidering the design of the
language would be the most important aspect if one wanted to give Maxima
a long lifetime.

I would not expect the Maxima community to take my advice seriously, in
fact, I do not consider it (given the circumstances on the ground) to be
particularly wise advice because taking it would be too disruptive.