FriCAS 1.0.0 has been released.
FriCAS is an advanced computer algebra system. Its capabilities range from
calculus (integration and differentiation) to abstract algebra. It can plot
functions and has integrated help system.
FriCAS 1.0.0 should build on Linux, many Unix like systems (for
example Mac OSX and Solaris 10) and Windows.
FriCAS is build on top of Common Lisp; several Lisps can compile
and run FriCAS, including GCL, SBCL, Clisp and OpenMCL.
Project page:
http://fricas.sf.net
Download page:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=200168
Mailing list. Please sign up before posting a message.
http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en
Waldek Hebisch
--
Waldek Hebisch
·······@math.uni.wroc.pl
In article <············@z-news.pwr.wroc.pl>,
Waldek Hebisch <·······@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote:
> FriCAS 1.0.0 has been released.
>
> FriCAS is an advanced computer algebra system. Its capabilities range from
> calculus (integration and differentiation) to abstract algebra. It can plot
> functions and has integrated help system.
>
> FriCAS 1.0.0 should build on Linux, many Unix like systems (for
> example Mac OSX and Solaris 10) and Windows.
>
> FriCAS is build on top of Common Lisp; several Lisps can compile
> and run FriCAS, including GCL, SBCL, Clisp and OpenMCL.
>
> Project page:
> http://fricas.sf.net
>
> Download page:
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=200168
>
> Mailing list. Please sign up before posting a message.
> http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en
>
>
> Waldek Hebisch
Thanks.
Question: does anybody still like/use literate programming?
Here with noweb?
Personally I find the use of noweb distracting.
Pro:
* creates nice static documentation
* unified documentation format across languages
Cons:
* creates static documentation, batch run
* all text files no longer have their native extension
* confuses the text editor (highlighting)
* makes the build more complicated
* makes the use of automated tools more complicated
* doesn't use the 'native' documentation features
of the language and its development environments
also:
* most better IDEs have some source browsing feature
* software is less often printed to paper as it used to be.
Today most developers have access to laptops or computer
with LCD screens where browsing source code fine.
* web based tools for viewing source repositories may
also have source browsers (with linking, highlighting, ...)
which also let you browse changes
Any experience from Axiom^h^h^h^h^h FriCAS?
Regards,
Rainer Joswig
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
> In article <············@z-news.pwr.wroc.pl>,
> Waldek Hebisch <·······@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote:
>
> > FriCAS 1.0.0 has been released.
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> Question: does anybody still like/use literate programming?
> Here with noweb?
>
> Personally I find the use of noweb distracting.
>
> Pro:
>
> * creates nice static documentation
> * unified documentation format across languages
>
> Cons:
>
> * creates static documentation, batch run
> * all text files no longer have their native extension
> * confuses the text editor (highlighting)
> * makes the build more complicated
> * makes the use of automated tools more complicated
> * doesn't use the 'native' documentation features
> of the language and its development environments
>
> also:
>
> * most better IDEs have some source browsing feature
> * software is less often printed to paper as it used to be.
> Today most developers have access to laptops or computer
> with LCD screens where browsing source code fine.
> * web based tools for viewing source repositories may
> also have source browsers (with linking, highlighting, ...)
> which also let you browse changes
>
> Any experience from Axiom^h^h^h^h^h FriCAS?
>
FriCAS still uses noweb -- new stuff uses plain files but it
will take some time to unwrap old files. Currently in FriCAS
noweb performs one useful function: there are (many) files
which logically form one unit, but which are split and
compiled separately.
Concerning literate programming I would say that nobody know
how to it well. Classicaly literate programming means that
code is split into little snippets and mixed with documentation.
This encourages documenting low-level aspects of code. IMHO
most of time it is better to avoid tricks and write clear code
than to document tricks. What is needed is higher level
documantation which explains grand design -- literate programming
is of little help here.
For me literate programming simply does not work: when I read
code extra prose is of little help, but lack of structure hurts.
OTOH I prefer documentation which makes sense without looking at
code.
Let me remark that Axiom nicely illustrates things which may go
wrong with literate programming (FriCAS got rid of worst abuses):
- useless "documentation" which just repeats in English what
the code is doing
- old bitrotten code which supposedly documents how things are
done (but is wrong)
- spagetti of hunks which makes tracing control and data flow
difficult
Finally, already in IBM era Axiom had its own documentation
toolchain. This toolchain has a bunch of nice features absent
in noweb (but is different).
--
Waldek Hebisch
·······@math.uni.wroc.pl
Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
> Question: does anybody still like/use literate programming?
> Here with noweb?
Yes, I do. In fact, that's the only bit that keeps me from embracing FriCAS.
For other reasons, I cannot follow the old Axiom project, nor OpenAxiom. A
strange situation, really.
> Cons:
>
> * creates static documentation, batch run
I don't understand this one.
> * all text files no longer have their native extension
I don't care about that one.
> * confuses the text editor (highlighting)
mmm-mode is your friend
> * makes the build more complicated
> * makes the use of automated tools more complicated
Waldek said this too. Since I don't know anything about build, I follow Waldek
here. Since I'm a mathematician, I spend most of my time with the algebra, so
personally I care only about that one.
> * doesn't use the 'native' documentation features
> of the language and its development environments
In the particular case at hand, that's only half-true. My personal goal was to
convince people to use ALLPROSE, which is a tool developed by Ralf Hemmecke,
mainly intended for documentation of Aldor. There, we use some (roughly three
or four) additional LaTeX commands, one of which creates the docstrings for
users only interested in applying the package.
As an example, you can look at
http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/people/hemmecke/AldorCombinat/
which only shows the complete documentation, though.
> Classicaly literate programming means that code is split into little snippets
> and mixed with documentation.
I also think that that's the wrong approach - most of the time. But I like to
use it if I found a bug in old code, do not have the time or expertise to
rewrite it completely, but want to write down my analysis of what it does
(mathematically).
One problem I found is that some things are obvious to some people, others are
obvious to others. Maybe this is less the case with "ordinary" programming, in
mathematics I was often astonished what Waldek found obvious. (I'm into
Combinatorics, Waldek does other things. In particular, I know little about
integration, Waldek does.)
Martin