JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SPACESYNTAX Archives


SPACESYNTAX Archives

SPACESYNTAX Archives


SPACESYNTAX@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPACESYNTAX Home

SPACESYNTAX Home

SPACESYNTAX  June 2007

SPACESYNTAX June 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Syntax2D Licensing

From:

Alan Penn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:57:07 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (92 lines)

Interesting - R was started by 2 people, has a current core group of people
with write permission less than 20, another 50 or so who are thanked for
debugging, contributing snippets etc. This looks like it is actually a very
tightly controlled collaborative writing exercise.

Now, a statistician might disagree with me, but... would it be fair to say
that in writing a statistics application of the sort that R aspires to being
the specification of any particular feature would be pretty well determined.
Eg. Would there be great disagreement on what was entailed in doing, say,
factor analysis? My guess is that there shouldn't be, although there could
well be great room for innovation in a) performance (writing really fast
algorithms to work with very big datasets) and b) graphic user interfaces or
visualisations. My feeling is that the same should hold for the CFD example
posted earlier in this thread (but a fluid dynamicist might well shoot me
down on that as well :-)

Here perhaps is where the syntax field might be a bit different. Why does
anyone want to write software? Well:

a) because it is a good way of getting inside what is happening in the
calculations - ie. it is a personal learning exercise;

b) because of some problems of platform independence - in the old days of
syntax stuff being Mac only this was a major reason why people with PC's
developed their own software (a disappearing motivation perhaps);

c) because of allocation compatibility with other applications - linking to
GIS or CAD in an intimate way, rather than just file in/out;

d) because one wants to develop entirely new representations and measures,
or new variants on existing ones (relativisations etc.)

I think a, b, and c, hold for any domain. But in an emerging field like
syntax there is a lot of d) going on at the moment (also surely at the
leading edge of stats and CFD of course). Now in doing d type work one
doesn't really want to have to get to grips with all that tricky user
interface stuff, reading datasets in, in old formats, exporting them out...
etc. etc. drawing to screen, colour maps etc. etc.

This is where there is a dilemma. In writing an integrated piece of software
- axman, webmap, depthmap all come to mind - the intimate link between
calculation, visualisation and user interaction are crucial to their
usefulness as 'tools for thinking with' about the problem at hand (urban
systems, say). In making that relation seamless to the user (click on this
line here and it highlights in that scatter over there) it requires a whole
lot of constraint and eliminatinon of possibilities by the programmer. This
is where the skill and experience of the Sheeps and Alasdairs of the world
come in: in figuring out before hand what Bill or I or some other user will
ask them for in the future, what should be retained as flexibility, and what
they may not ask for and what might as well be eliminated to make the whole
thing manageable. This is the skill of research computing development. An
example: In Istanbul Bill showed rather beautiful 'mountainscapes' relating
metric depth locally and globally. These are a 'created phenomenon' made
possible by Depthmap, but un-thought of at the time the facility to create
them in Depthmap was written. The facility is generic, smooth and simple to
the user (virtually transparent actually), but involves a lot of decisions
on the part of the programmer to achieve that transparency. Those decisions
all involve closing off other possibilities.

Now a really good open source project would allow exactly those 'closed off'
possibilities to be reopened without requiring recoding of absolutely
everything. But - and this is the dilemma - separating out the closed off
possibilities and making them re-openable requires them to be recognised in
advance, and allowed for in the way the code is modularised. This in itself
adds another layer of complexity to the whole project of coding, and one
which (I think) may only be amenable to formal code management, systems
engineering, top down control, rather than the open market place of open
source - everyone 'doing their thang' - perhaps I am wrong though...

Alan
 

>
> Alan Penn wrote:
>
> > Taken all in all, I wonder whether the open source model works for this
> kind
> > of analytic software development - there must be examples from other
> fields
> > of science. Does anyone know of them?
>
> The R project is a GNU project: it is a language and environment for
> statistical computing and graphics.
>
> http://www.r-project.org/
>
> It adopts the model of an official distribution of a quality-controlled
> core, and a modular structure for add-on packages that anyone can
> contribute.
>
> Regards,
> Andrew Smith

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager