Talk:Maple (software)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maple should be added to category "Numerical programming languages".

Agreed and done. If you want to do that, all you need do is add the text [[Category:Numerical programming languages]] to the article text. --Saforrest 18:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] POV on Criticsms Section

First of all, that section needs some sources.

"this does not adequately compensate the public for the commercialization of Maple." The section containing this sentence needs work, ie, some official or notable person saying so. Right now it is worded like Wikipedia says its inadequate. The rest of the section reads like Wikipedia is allegeing these claims. We must find sources or delete. Copysan 08:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on criticisms

I have removed [1] the horribly unsourced and POV "criticisms" and also the "responses":

  • None of the criticisms are sourced (the "reference" was to a poll on Maple Primes which is hardly classifiable as a reliable source),
  • the criticisms are rather randomly and idiosyncratically chosen,
  • the "responses" are unsourced apologetics which do not even respond to the criticisms cited.

Wikipedia is not a place for random anonymous axe-grinding about Maple's flaws. Criticisms have to be sourced (e.g. a magazine review of the software).

My objection to these criticisms is purely for the reasons cited above. That said, in order to prevent any impression that I'm concealing my background, I should mention that I am a former employee of Waterloo Maple.


--Saforrest 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe that the criticisms on Maple being proprietary are unsourced? The AMS Notices ran an opinion piece in November or October that criticised all proprietary software in mathematics. I'm adding this criticism to Maple and referencing the AMS opinion piece. Swap (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think "Criticisms" is quite the right word for complaints that something isn't free.--Pleasantville (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not about price, it's about (academic) freedom. And this is a very valid criticism, as very few people who use Maple directly pay for it anyways (schoolwide or businesswide licenses, for instance). I'm adding this section again, as this is a very direct criticism against proprietary (i.e. closed-source, freedom-impinging) software. Swap (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The AMS opinion piece argued that scientific research should be based on open source software in order to ensure full reproducibility, which is a fair position (and not just someone whining about the price). However, it is probably too general to be worth mentioning in an article about Maple, especially as Maple is probably used at least as much in engineering and development, as it is used in scientific research.
There probably could be a separate article on the attituted towards the use of closed sources in peer-reviewed scientific research, if anyone would bother to do the research on the topic.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


The main complaint of the AMS article is that the source code is not viewable, so as to allow checking of the calculations. This complaint applies little to Maple; rather, it applies to Mathematica, and the article seems disingenuous in its attempt at broader application. I question the honor of the authors. I agree that you should take your advocacy elsewhere. 81.152.214.170 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Maple's source isn't all visible. Most notably, the Maple kernel, which has important routines such as the simplification routines, is completely closed off. Would you like me to find sources on exactly how much of Maple's source isn't visible? Also, the AMS article makes other important criticisms that do apply to Maple, such as Maple not being freely shareable, and not all of it is laid open for inspection (the "two of the most basic rules of conduct" quote). While I will admit to have an axe to grind here, I'll also say that I'm not the only one, as there is a growing body of criticism against proprietary software in mathematics, and it's dishonest to attempt to hide that criticism in a Wikipedia article. I'm reverting the edit. Swap (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Digana, you have reverted more than three times in 24 hours. This is a violation of WP:3RR. If reported to admins, you will be suspended from WP. I assume that it was an oversight, but please take care in the future. 81.152.214.170 (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look more closely you will find that Digna's last revert was to UNDO his own previous change. That's because he admitted (very graciously) that he couldn't back up his argument with references, so withdrew his edit. That's not a 3RR problem; in fact I wish more people behaved like that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Opps, no it seems I am wrong. Digana did revert more than 3 times. But since he has withdrawn I suggest no action is taken. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the AMS piece, since it is removed from the article: Opinion: Open Source Mathematical Software.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the opinion piece was received in part as pre-release PR for the new version of SAGE. --Pleasantville (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The author of the Wired blog seemed to have misunderstood the AMS piece, but apparently changed his mind after a couple of the comments. It doesn't really matter though, we are not supposed to talke sides. Had the AMS piece used Maple rather than Mathematica as an example, I'd have supported mentioning it here. But it doesn't so I don't.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maple Bugs encyclopedia

I think there should really be a link here to the maple bugs encyclopedia, and a general discussion of bugs in maple. Comments? Mrjeff 11:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can do it while satisfying Wikipedia:Attribution, sure. But I doubt that will be possible. --Saforrest 00:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sample code?

Can someone include a neat/short example of Maple code demonstrating some language contructs, such as:

  • declarations
  • IF statement
  • WHILE loop
  • CASE statement
  • a procedure declaration
  • a structure declaration
  • a mode or operator declaration

How about:

factorial := proc(n)
  local out
  out:=1;
  if n<0 then ERROR('factorial failed') else
    for i from 1 to n do
      out*:=i
    od;
    out
  fi
end

NevilleDNZ 08:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Imperative sample DONE

NevilleDNZ 09:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

William Spaetzel 14:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC) The code given did not actually, work. I updated the code with some that works in Maple 11

re: updated code

I did a quick google on what the typical maple program uses to terminate block, and google would seem to suggest that the fi/od is far more well used (web published) then the endif/enddo. Hence is there any chance we can revert the sample code to be more "typical" maple code sample?

The results of a google are as follows:

This is near an order of magnitude difference in hits, 145,000 vs 18,400. Which makes the difference <q>some-what</q> significant.

Personally, the END IF and END DO reminds me of FORTRAN77, aside from being atypical maple code, so...

  • I vote revert back to using fi/od. Does anyone have any better ideas?

ALSO: The article contains details like pricing, release dates and a couple of nice images. Some more technical details, eg types and typing, design, semantics, libraries/algebras and overview of internal structure would be welcome.

Other details, such as statistics on usage. Acknowledged strengths vs weaknesses. Anyone know of some useful references on these?

BTW: Does maple have a case statement? ALSO: Exception handling, OO constructs, FileIO, MultiCore CPU support?

NevilleDNZ 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Maple11Interface.jpg

Image:Maple11Interface.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Is it now considered a 'criticism' that a company retains ownership of its copyright? Don't be daft. What's next? Criticism because it costs too much? Criticism because it doesn't run on DOS computers? Criticism because it doesn't interact with WordPerfect? Criticism because it wasn't written in Python? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The criticism that Maple is proprietary is not any one of those. Free software is often copyrighted by its authors as well or by an entity that represents them. Please understand the nature of the criticism before you decide to remove it on a strawman basis. Swap (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I totally understand the nature of the criticism. However your edits don't make it clear. Just criticising something because it's not open source is just being a whiner, or an OS zealot. If your problem is with those who construct proofs with proprietary software which cannot then be verified, the problem is with the people who do that. As you say, whatever criticism is levelled applies to any mathematical software, so this is not the place for it.
Incidentally are you aware that almost all of Maple's source code is available to its users? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The criticism in this case is being leveraged because it's mathematical proprietary software. And it's not my whining I'm referencing, but one appearing in a notable AMS publication.
Yes, most source is visible, but 5% in the Maple kernel isn't, and this includes some very important core functions like the simplification routines. Also, source is the least they can give us; mathematical research also demands that results can be freely shared and improved upon, which proprietary software like Maple restricts and forbids. These are points addressed in the article I'm using to source this criticism. Swap (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, an interesting thesis. But let's examine more closely:
  1. Your criticism is one person writing an opinion column. Even in the AMS it's just his opinion. More people have criticized the US because they make people pay income tax.
  2. Even the guy writing it isn't sure that open source would help, because the source code may be too complicated to analyze. He also admits he's writing open source mathematical software, so he may not be entirely unbiased.
  3. Maple isn't mentioned in the article.
  4. Even if the criticism were valid, there would be many more ways of solving the problem than making all mathematical software open source.
  5. Mathematical research doesn't demand open source software, any more than common decency demands I be able to drive a Lexus for free. If mathematical research demands open source software, why are mathematicians using proprietary software? Proprietary software does not prevent the sharing of results, and if someone wants to verify results from Maple they can use other software or work it out by hand.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, let's see how this goes...
  1. Granted. Should I find more sources?
  2. He isn't saying this. He's ironically quoting Wolfram who says this.
  3. Granted. Should I find one who mentions Maple?
  4. That's irrelevant. All that matters is that this is a criticism that applies to Maple and should be mentioned in Maple.
  5. Your analogy with a Lexus is misleading, since price isn't the issue here. We all know that software development costs money, and developing free software does too, so we should pay for free software. And proprietary software does prevent sharing of results, as the problems of classification of finite simple groups mentioned in the article exemplifies.

So I grant you two out of five points. Basically, I need more sources. Will that be sufficient, once I find them? Swap (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you need more sources. Whether or not that is sufficient depends on what sources you find. In my opinion what you have in the article is wrong because: Open-sourcing software would only be one possible solution to the problem. There are plenty of others.

I don't have to mention solutions in the article, only criticisms. Swap (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if you find sources that mention Maple this applies to a whole category of software.

So there's no way to include a specific criticism section on an article if other articles happen to fall on the same criticism? Swap (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does it only apply to mathematical software? Why doesn't it apply to statistical software, or engineering software, or medical results analysis software?

It applies to those too, but for different reasons, I'm not going to include those criticisms in this article. Swap (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Really this is a criticism of users of Maple. You are complaining because users of Maple are creating things with it that you think should be sharable. There are plenty of uses of mathematical software that don't need to be shared (analysis of engineering designs, analysis of proprietary data). The problem according to you is that people choose to use proprietary mathematical software for something you don't think it should be usable for. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We free software advocates argue that free software would make analysis of proprietary data like you mention much easier (and yes, I've seen cases of people who are using software as a blackbox to analyse an engineering design and are stymied by the inherent limitations of their proprietary software; sometimes the source is completely lost to everyone). The problem with people using proprietary software in mathematics is the snowball effect: the more people use it, the greater the problem grows, the harder it is to stop it, and the more it affects all of us. Swap (talk)

That being said, I have to grant that I don't have enough sources. I suppose I lose. I'll come back next year when the movement for free software in mathematics gains more momentum and is notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. :-) Swap (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine. Please feel free to come back then. In the meantime, please will you remove the section. Thanks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that WP:N says that multiple nontrivial sources are required only to determine the notability of subjects for articles, not content. In other words, you do not need multiple sources for anything mentioned in the content of an article. The policies that do govern content are WP:RS and WP:V. Clearly, Notices of the American Mathematical Society fit the definition of a reliable source and an opinion article from it is quite verifiable. Therefore, I would say that the addition of this article and its viewpoint is valid. It is the same as somebody writing an opinion piece or movie review in the New York Times. Copysan (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, regarding "More people have criticized the US because they make people pay income tax.", please see FairTax. There is your criticism of the United States income tax. Copysan (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The primary criticism made by the AMS opinion piece is that mathematical software should be viewable, for checking; this is what the Fields Medalist is quoted for as well. The piece then correctly observes that Mathematica source code is not viewable. Fine, but such argumentation has little to do with Maple, where almost all the source code is viewable (via print). Indeed, the piece appears to be employing a slight of hand here. As I said above, I question the honor of the authors.

Maple is not mentioned in the piece. If you want to argue that all mathematical software should be freely given away (as Digana does), then you are in season: please see the article on Santa Claus for details. Whatever Digana or anyone else might think, Maple and Mathematica have made a real contribution to mathematics, without being free. 81.152.214.170 (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate, if by "be freely given away", you mean "gratis", this completely misses the mark. Money is not the issue at all here, never has been, never will. Most Maple users don't pay directly for Maple anyways. The point is that mathematics doesn't need legal restrictions on how it is to be done. Swap (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
On your Talk page, I had left a comment that discussed "open source" software. Your reply there criticized that, saying you preferred "free software" and "this underlies our differing take on the whole subject". So in my above comment (of the 21st), I used the same term as you said you preferred. Incredibly, you now criticize my using the term; you further claim that I "completely miss the mark" because this is not about money, even though I have nowhere mentioned money.
Your comment is poor sophistry. This is the second time I have seen Sage proponents resort to that—the other being in the AMS piece. I do not wish to debate with such tactics. You have made an important point though: if Sage proponents feel that they have to resort to sophistry to promote their product, then they themselves must not be confident of Sage on it own merits. For comparison, I have never seen Maple proponents resort to such tactics.
This discussion seems to have little to do with Maple. I suggest that it be ended, or at least moved elsewhere.  81.152.214.170 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My view is that Maplesoft should be highly praised for making the large majority of their source code viewable. Commercially, this is a risk, because it much facilitates others stealing their code. Yet Maplesoft has done it, for the benefit of users. And how are they rewarded for that? By disingenuous opinion pieces, which do not even acknowledge Maple's viewability.

If you want to have an article discussing the pros and cons of various aspects of open-sourceness as applied mathematical software, then as long as it is written even-handedly, I think that would be good. The Maple article could then link to that.
81.152.214.170 (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are quite fair to either Joyner/Stein or Digina, especially your Santa Claus comment misses the point by a rather wide margin. But I do agree that a general criticism should be a in a general article. There are well argued position papers for and against the use of proprietary software in all areas. We should not repeat that discussion in every software related article. The article about Mathematical software could do with a bit more meat, and would be a good place to mention arguments for and against the use proprietary software particularly for mathematic research.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I was unaware of the article about Mathematical software. I agree that that would be a very good place to discuss pros & cons of proprietary math software. (I have now put a link in the Maple article to that article.)
My criticism of the AMS piece stands, for the reasons given. My criticism of Digana's position was actually a response to the fantasy described by Digana on her/his talk page that all mathematical software must be free and that Maple's existence is “directly in opposition to many mathematical principles”. I believe that my response was spot on (with some humor thrown in at no extra charge). It probably would have been more appropriate to post it on that talk page, rather than here, though. In any case, both these issues are tiny compared to the main one: discussion of pros & cons of proprietary software should be in separate article (probably Mathematical software).
81.152.214.170 (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Maple morphos.png

Image:Maple morphos.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, please get rid of that image. It's from a version of the software nearly fifteen years old. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)