Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I am leading an academic research group with a site-wide Symbolica license.

Because Symbolica is in early development and the work of a single person for now, one great benefit for us is the dedicated attention we receive. Any bug or feature we're particularly interested in gets immediate attention.

And despite the product being licensed, Symbolica's source-available nature gives us full confidence in the author's long-term intent. We therefore trust that accepting Symbolica as a dependency of the framework we are building will never constitute a point of failure.

Supporting Symbolica's nascent effort and having a direct line of contact with its single author also means it is easy to discuss particular arrangements specific to our use case, such as end-user license requirements.



All those C++ examples feel like bare bones C, when modern C++ can be made to look as easy to use as Python.

I expect to see std:: types for everything, proper namespaces, ranges,... not C strings, C arrays, and extern "C".

See CUDA and SYCL.

Also the API reference for C++ is missing in most places.


He's a one-man army of a one-year old software, so it makes sense that he would focus on core features that are most relevant to his existing customers and capable of attracting new ones. If this was important to you or someone else who would sign up for a Symbolica license, I'm sure he would improve on this. A streamlined C++ API is comparatively easier to achieve than beating state-of-the-art efficiency on key CAS algorithms...

We should encourage this original approach of licensed source available software, otherwise you end up with either black-boxy Mathematica-like software of xzlib disasters and nothing in between.


Completely fair, but then don't announce what is a C library, as being a C++ one, just because it uses iostream on the examples.

Tell it is a C library, and announce C++ support when it is actually available.


Yeah, I agree that it should be advertised differently, stressing the obvious WIP aspect. I guess the idea is just to show that the seed for a proper C/C++ API is there, and ready to be developed further for whenever a customer requires it. Out of curiosity, what is your use case?


I was only making the point that many of us in C++ community don't appreciate libraries making the minimum effort, only because C89 is a C++ subset.

It is like shipping JavaScript libraries, and then letting Typescript users having to create .d.ts files by themselves.

In my case, I only care about GPGPU, HLSL and CUDA cover that.


I’m not sure what I like the most: the positive collaborative attitude, or your user name!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: