There are separate people working on different aspects of the product - documentation being separate from coding. So asking for improvements to documentation does not mean that it will negatively impact ``features''. Why are acer and I (and many others) still using Maple and posting so often on primes if we have so many complaints? For my part, it is because basically I am better off with Maple than without. A lot of people say the same thing about Windows too. And yet they complain a lot. They want improvements. And, at least with Vista versus XP, they will speak with their money: if the improvements are not in the places that matter, many may choose to not upgrade. My complaints all come from the same place: I want Maple to be ever more useful to me. Maple is such a huge product that not all of it can improve for every release. So the hope is that customer feedback will form the basis of where some efforts are put regarding improvements. The message on primes has been fairly clear: it seems that the documentation is currently the weakest spot. Maplesoft will continue to innovate in the areas they see fit (a good thing!); we can (and should) influence where they put time on incremental improvements.

The Dictionary is nice -- but misleading! The definitions are mathematically correct, but they are not always the ones that Maple uses itself. And some of the terminology used in Maple help pages is not defined in the Dictionary, and some terminology that is defined isn't linked. I have found that MathWorld is closer to the definitions that Maple uses, and Wikipedia frequently has more thorough articles (perhaphs except on special functions) than MathWorld. I would like Maple to change the way I do mathematics even more, but keep getting frustrated by the almost-there functionality a little throughout. Just today, I was using Maple 11 (Standard) and cut&pasted from it into a (plain text) email, to show something off. The results were hideous -- way too narrow width (and thus amazingly tall results), awful line-breaking, a weird mixture of small, medium and huge parentheses, as well as have a mixture of hard- and soft- linebreaks. Results from Classic, for the same expression, were much better.

Is there any way to get at the actual data -- I mean posts or Ranking by id? I think this data set would make an interesting one to study via Maple's own facilities, especially the new Statistics package. It would be interesting to do some data fitting (see what distribution the data seems to fit, what parameters, etc). Actually, releasing data snapshots every quarter might be nice, to see the time evolution too.

Dave L moved up a lot -- and from the 2nd to well into the first page. This has had the secondary effect of pushing Nitroxx to the second page, but more interestingly, to now make the minimum ranking of 51 to be on the first page. And a few more posts by Karel Srot will move that up (to 55 anyways). During this week, Will hit 700. And Mariner overtook roman_pearce! acer and dcasimir were once closer together in ranking, but acer's been posting more, so dcasimir has some work to do to catch up. Scott03 is continuing to move up slowly, while DJ Clayworth seems to have stalled.

If you look at the help page for LinearAlgebra:-Zip, you'll see that the last example is component-wise multiplication (also known as Hadamard product, which is what I search for myself when I can't remember how to do this). So zip and LinearAlgebra:-Zip can do this. Another way is via ArrayTools:-ElementMultiply. Of course, both of these commands just call zip(`*`,...) !

If you look at the help page for LinearAlgebra:-Zip, you'll see that the last example is component-wise multiplication (also known as Hadamard product, which is what I search for myself when I can't remember how to do this). So zip and LinearAlgebra:-Zip can do this. Another way is via ArrayTools:-ElementMultiply. Of course, both of these commands just call zip(`*`,...) !