Talk:Maple (software)/Archive01

message: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title: POV on Criticsms Section

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sample code? 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Maple11Interface.jpg

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Maple morphos.png

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  NAG extended to arbitrary precision 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Are MapleSoft sock puppets controlling this page? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Plot 'bug'

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Abandoned

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Edit: Single Variable Plotting 

message: 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 citehttp://history.siam.org/oralhistories/gonnet.htm 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lost Market Share 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Examples as Training Tools 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update to versions section 

message: 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)
thread_title: advert template

message: 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)
thread_title:  maple code