Talk:Maple (software)/Archive01

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

I'd just like to point out that October 28th 2010 was 4 days ago and not 32 days. It says that the latest stable maple was published on October 28th 2010 which is 32 days ago.

Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)

POV on Criticsms Section[edit]

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)[reply]

"Some simple plots in Classic Maple interface do not look smooth. They look OK in Standard Maple though," does not sound very encyclopedia-worthy at all. Can someone rewrite this section so that it works? --24.83.219.223 (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on criticisms[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maple Bugs encyclopedia[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Sample code?[edit]

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)[reply]

Imperative sample DONE

NevilleDNZ 09:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

re: updated code[edit]

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:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=maple+fi+od Results 1 - 10 of about 145,000 for maple fi od. (0.05 seconds)
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=maple+end-if+end-do Results 1 - 10 of about 18,400 for maple end-if end-do. (0.29 seconds)

This is near an order of magnitude difference in hits, 145,000 vs 18,400. Which makes the difference some-what 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?

Andrew: I agree. if fi do od is much simpler. I believe the end if end do functionality was added for flexibility and a matter of personal taste (habits). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.221.50 (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The use of "end if", "end do", "end proc" etc. has been explicitly recommended in every version of Maple since Maple 6 in 2000. All the help page examples have it; all the provided documentation has it.

The od/fi syntax is still supported, but you will note that entering:

proc(x) if foo then do x; od: else fi:

will result in the (prettyprinted) output

proc(x) if foo then do x; end do; end if; end proc:

Google will undoubtedly find a huge amount of old Maple code because Maple is old enough now for much of its code to be legacy. But the "end foo" syntax is certainly what is being pushed in all recent releases. --Saforrest (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hmm, an interesting thesis. But let's examine more closely:

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.
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.
Maple isn't mentioned in the article.
Even if the criticism were valid, there would be many more ways of solving the problem than making all mathematical software open source.
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)[reply]

Alright, let's see how this goes...

Granted. Should I find more sources?
He isn't saying this. He's ironically quoting Wolfram who says this.
Granted. Should I find one who mentions Maple?
That's irrelevant. All that matters is that this is a criticism that applies to Maple and should be mentioned in Maple.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Criticism of Maple should be present; perhaps, in a special section. There are several examples when Maple does well; the article shold provide several examples of opposite kind, to keep neutral point of view. 124.210.43.192 (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NAG extended to arbitrary precision[edit]

Currently the article says "In 1999, with the release of Maple 6, Maple included some of the NAG Numerical Libraries[3], extended to arbitrary precision." That isn't true is it? The NAG libraries only accept floats and the arbitrary precision is all done in GMP? Galoisgroupie (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure but I would guess it mean "Maple included some of the NAG Numerical Libraries and extended [it's other numerics] to arbitrary precision". DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, I have changed the wording to reflect that. Galoisgroupie (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informed (by private communication) that the NAG sources were in fact recompiled and linked into Maple's arbitrary precision arithmetic, so the original statement was true. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are MapleSoft sock puppets controlling this page?[edit]

Last week I reverted deletion of cited material about alternative software from a user with no edit history User:Tlyp which returned the next day but not logged in and so revealed the editing IP address as being from MapleSoft.

At the time I thought it might be a misguided employee who did not know about WP:COI. But yesterday there was a very similar edit, with the same profile: new user with zero edit history, also removing a reference to alternative software.

Looking further, I notice that the first edits by Tlyp were followed within an hour by two edits by User:Redune pushing it down the edit list. Redune, it turns out is also a MapleSoft employee, with lots of edits on the Maple page and MapleSoft page. Many clearly factual, but many also more subjective.

Its easy to get paranoid, as I then noticed the only other recent editor on this page with no prior edit history User:Rendal12 made an edit to Maple (software) and an edit to MapleSoft which were both followed within 30 minutes by edits by User:Redune. These edits were not controversial, so this may be coincidence.

How is this kind of thing usually handled? Galoisgroupie (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And they continue doing that. In particular, yesterday somebody from Maplesoft IP address 199.71.183.2 completely removed the section about 2D plots. See comments on that at http://www.mapleprimes.com/forum/wikipediaplotbug . Can it be restored? Alec (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, 2 active participants on this page, William Spaetzel and DJ Clayworth are current Maplesoft employees. Alec (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this page a number of times. Always with the interest of keeping the page accurate and useful. I you check the edit history, you'll see that I created a good amount of this page in the first place. William Spaetzel (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I agree that you did a lot of good work on this page. Is it possible (by checking the server log, for instance) to find out who wiped out the 2d plot section? It wasn't particularly good and I tried to improve it, but it would be better, probably, if it was completely rewritten with adding a nice looking example instead. The stair-like looking plots, while exist, are not typical. Alec (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies are quite clear that people with vested interests should not make controversial edits on their products, companies or otherwise related pages and where possible should explain their case with an declaration of their personal interests in the talk pages. The latest example, which Marlboro100 spotted is clearly a violation - removing content because it was critical of the product with no reason or statement of vested interests.

I will go through recent edits and revert those COI edits that are subjective, without judgement about whether they are good or bad, to highlight them. Please would other, independent editors (with an edit history) put back those that are reasonable. I will assume any directly factual statements are non-controversial. Galoisgroupie (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this. The first four paragraphs of the History section, which have no citations, were created by reduce, but I think it would be verging on vandalism for me to remove those. They need a POV Check flag put on them, but I don't know how to do that. Galoisgroupie (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching this article and afraid to do anything. I think you did the right thing, Galoisgroupie. Thank you. George Gesslein II (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the history paragraph in question, and it doesn't seem to me to be controversial. It also seems like the sort of information that is only likely to be available to someone who was present at the time; so we probably have to either accept input from an employee (or former employee) or not have the information. I can't see that it's doing any harm - it's not promoting the company, it's not even saying anything particularly nice about them. Of course you may consider me a biased source too. (And no I wasn't an employee at the time the paragraph talks about, or anything like it). DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Another new account with zero edit history (Chipp C) removing exactly the same content as the MapleSoft user Tlyp (references to alternative software, references to plot weakness in Maple and toning down the reference to Maple losing partners). I will revert assuming this is a MapleSoft employee again.

A comment to the MapleSoft team: Leaving it a month and trying again is not going to work. I will put in a request to have your IP space blocked if you persist in treating Wikipedia as your marketing tool. Galoisgroupie (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galoisgroupie, I am sorry that you feel this way, but please try to look at the edits that were made before automatically assuming a new user does not know how to follow the rules. Below, DJ Clayworth has clearly demonstrated why my edits were valid. I must start to wonder if your user account, which has an edit history *only* on computer algebra systems and the like, may have an ulteriour motive behind your efforts here. While I respect that you are taking time to ensure that Wikipedia maintains a neutral stance in all articles, I will ask that you review the edits that were made and consider the actions you have taken in regards to your reverting them. Thank you. Chipp C (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New user? I can't believe I am the only one who thinks that Chipp C is a MapleSoft employee. For the record, I will list the available information so others can judge the pattern: The only contributions so far are to replace this recent edit by MapleSoft IP address (199.71.183.2), this recent edit by MapleSoft IP address (199.71.183.2) and this recent edit by MapleSoft employee Redune. The account was created after this thread about sock puppets was started.

As I stated above, I reverted changes on the principle that MapleSoft employees should not be controlling this page and to highlight those sections without taking a position on the quality of content. DJ Clayworth has taken an appropriate step to further highlight two of them.

Credible independent editors (with an edit history), should make the judgement on the edits. Galoisgroupie (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2011, it seems painfully clear to me that this article is being used as a marketing tool. Totally inappropriate.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot 'bug'[edit]

Someone keeps inserting a statement about 'plots not looking smooth' as if were worth of serious attention. The 'Classic' interface which the bug is in has been superceded for around five years, so in essence this statement boils down to "there used to be a minor bug in plots, but it's been fixed". Is this the sort of thing that an encyclopedia should cover? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sorry for not leaving a trail in the talk page, but DJ Clayworth has an excellent point. In the future I will post my reasoning before taking action.Chipp C (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I happen to agree that this content is inappropriate. Galoisgroupie (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Galois. Since I'm trying to minimize my editing of this article I'd be grateful if someone else could remove that content. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galoisgroupie, if you agree that this content is inappropriate, would you mind removing this plot bug and the abandoned statement? Only remove the abandoned statement if you agree with DJ Clayworth below. I would very much appreciate that. Thank you. Chipp C (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it now. I have no opinion either way on the use of "abandoned" so will leave that for others to comment on. Galoisgroupie (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned[edit]

The statement about other users having 'abandoned' Maple carries an implication - i.e. that they chose to discontinue it's use - which is simply not true in all those cases. They stopped using it, true, but no reference has been found to show that they discontinued it of their own choice (and you won't find such references). Can we neutralize this language please? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the abandoned statement back to the neutral comment. I did the change anonymously (somewhat accidentally), and it is an IP address from a Maplesoft employee. I would normally leave this for another user to change, but seeing as not many users actually visit the talk page here, I decided to change it and let a user change it back if they disagree. DJ Clayworth is 100% correct in saying that you will not find references to show that these other developers discontinued use of the engine of their own choice. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Edit: Single Variable Plotting[edit]

I was wondering if someone could perform this edit for me (I'm an employee of Maplesoft as noted above, and I'd like to make sure 3rd parties agree with the NPOV of my edit). I wanted to change the single variable plotting to follow the form of multivariable plotting and other Maple examples on this page. The edit is below.

Update: It seems nobody really visits this talk page much. I've made the edit, and if anyone disagrees with the changeI would be more than happy to discuss the edit with them here.Chipp C (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Market Share[edit]

Full Disclosure: I am a Maplesoft employee. The line, "Between the mid 1995 and 2005 Maple lost significant market share to competitors due to a weaker user interface" is conjecture. The cite^[1] is with a former member of the company, who doesn't have access to sales numbers. Reading the article, it is clear that Gonnet is a biased source as he did not leave the company on good terms. As such, I suggest that this line be removed from this article. William Spaetzel (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since 3 weeks have passed with no response, I've removed this line from the history section William Spaetzel (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the person is clearly in a position to know and the citation is from a very reputable source, it is imposing too much editorial opinion to judge the source discredited. I suggest you add cited information to counter the claim, or to show the weakness of the source, rather than censoring it. Galoisgroupie (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples as Training Tools[edit]

I disagree with the assertion that sample code should not be given in the article (because Wikipedia is not meant to train). The examples are not there to train, but rather to give the reader a concrete idea as to what the product does. By looking at the examples, I understand right away what this software does. It's no different, for example, than showing a picture of the space shuttle under the Space Shuttle article. Removing the example code from this article would be like removing the photo of the shuttle. Neither are needed, but both are very useful and add interest to the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.233.40 (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the examples are not "teaching" as they are a radmom overveiw of fuction types, I came here to the Talk to see what justification it was put up for and only found (talk)'s comment. I'm removing the tag, as its been two months and no comment. Larek (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather ignorant to assert that a two page description tantamount to "teaching". A textbook on Maple such as "Maple V by Example by Matha Abell and James Braselton has more than 600 pages, even then it still left out many topics. Key examples are necessary to give reader a idea about the functionality of Maple,why it is different from Fortran or C; an example in high order polynomial equation with Maple immediately clarifies for the reader that Maple can solve it in few lines, very different from Fortran etc. With out examples, any write up is useless--Gisling (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Update to versions section[edit]

Full disclosure -- I am a Maplesoft employee. I updated the versions section to correct some information that was out of date with the most recent release of Maple. Specifically, I indicated that the MATLAB toolbox is now included with all versions of Maple, and I clarified the pricing by adding info about the academic version. I also clarified the sentence that originally indicated that students receive less documentation -- which is true, but only when the student purchases the physical product. There are no differences when purchasing an electronic download. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eboy71 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm that Matlab available in Maple:

> with(Matlab); [AddTranslator, FromMFile, FromMatlab, chol, closelink, defined, det, dimensions, eig, evalM, fft, getvar, inv, lu, ode15s,ode45, openlink, qr, setvar, size,square, transpose] --Gisling (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

advert template[edit]

I've added the advert template. This is probably the most extreme case I've ever seen on WP of an article that reads like an advertisement for a product. I've deleted the price list, which was obviously utterly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. The section titled "Examples of Maple code" is basically software documentation; publishing software documentation is the role of the company selling the software, not WP. Many of the images in this section seem to have licensing problems. --75.83.69.196 (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree--Gisling (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

maple code[edit]

It is absurd for me and obfuscating, that the maple code has no unique layout, making it unambiguously discernable just by viewing at the text. Either the font should always be fixed-point or its background should be grey, or it should have a leading symbol at each line, or... --Gotti 21:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druseltal2005 (talk • contribs)

^ http://history.siam.org/oralhistories/gonnet.htm

[1] ttp://history.siam.org/oralhistories/gonnet.htm

[1]