euler(0,1) shows Maple bugs are really ubiquitous - comp.soft-sys.math.maple

Message from discussion euler(0,1) shows Maple bugs are really ubiquitous

Peter Luschny

View profile

More options Dec 23 2003, 5:37 am

Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.math.maple

From: "Peter Luschny" <peter.lusc...@gmx.net>

Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:39:57 +0100

Local: Tues, Dec 23 2003 5:39 am

Subject: Re: euler(0,1) shows Maple bugs are really ubiquitous

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

> "Alec Mihailovs" wrote:
> > "Vladimir Bondarenko"
> > PL> euler(0,1); # Sure, this must be equal to 1
> > -1
> As usual, this can be easily fixed:
> myeuler:=n-> if n=0 then 1 else euler(args) fi:
> myeuler(0,1);

I am impressed ;-) Thanks.
But, as usual, you did not get the point.

If we have to start to fix even the constant functions
in Maple first, we can very well refrain from using
Maple at all.

Second: Can you tell us how many software out there,
build since

Maple V, Release 3, IBM INTEL NT, Jan 10, 1994
** 10 years now, happy birthday **

use explicit or implicit this function and is
by this very fact buggy? How can you help them?
You can't.

Most of them will never be aware of this fact but
all of them might be bitten some day by the bug.

And third: I did not really expect a bug fix, but a
comment, what might be so fundamentally wrong at
Maplesoft, that they cannot even guarantee a
constant function to have a constant value.

The usual blah-blah of inherent complexity ect.
used to exculpate inability, is obviously not
applicable here.

To build a robust, all time correct code for
euler(0,x) all you have to do is

euler := proc(n,x) if n=0 then RETURN(1) else..

(Which is even shorter than your bug fix.)

They obviously use other techniques, and these
techniques of software-development are not robust
and not state of the art, use techniques which fail
over and over again.

They are to be asked why.

What I can imagine as a possible cause: The
developers there know too much of mathematics
and not enough of software development.

And the management fails to realize this.

The Java-front-end debacle might indicate that
the management cannot even identify competent
developers for a given task.

Regards Peter

Reply to author Forward