<legal issue responses moved to axiom-legal> --- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On February 13, 2006 6:14 PM C Y wrote: > >... > > However, based on your comments below, I would suggest > > the following steps might be immediately useful: > > > > a) Post the downloads for aldor on the Axiom site (I still can't > > get through to aldor.org :-( and the site is slower now) - I think > > this is allowed under the license no problem. > > I don't know what is happening with the aldor.org server. Some days > I can access it and other days not. Is this a good omen or a bad one? > Is it further motivation to proceed with distributing Aldor as part > of Axiom? Well, at least a mirror would be good - it's a bit hard to test Aldor+Axiom without downloading Aldor ;-). > I think you can still get an older (v1.0.1) Windows version of Aldor > here: > > http://www.orcca.on.ca/~ldragan/aldor/Windows_versions_of_Aldor.html Ah, Windows hadn't occured to me. Ugh. > Here is the version of Aldor we are running the axiom-developer.org > server: > > http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/public/aldor-linux-i386-v1.0.2.bin Great! Thanks! > http://www.orcca.on.ca/~ldragan/aldor > > refers to a new version v1.0.3rc1 (release candidate 1) of Aldor but > the link is incorrect. The correct link is: > > http://www.orcca.on.ca/~ldragan/aldor/aldor-linux-v3-1.0.3rc1.tar.gz > > The dates on the files are 2004-10-30. I have not tried this version > yet. Hmm. Do we know what was being fixed/updated? > If you need help with the installation, just let me know. I'll give the instructions a read and see how I do - I have patch47 on my home machine now so I'll be doing a general Axiom upgrade pretty quick - the main question is probably whether my jdk is new enough. > > b) Let's incorporate aldor into the main Axiom now - if it is firm > > we will be using Aldor (and based on my recollection everyone is in > > agreement Aldor is the way forward over SPAD) lets not wait for the > > legal stuff to finalize - that could take many more months. We > > could at least do the following: > > > > i) Work out how the Aldor compiler and the lisp structure of > > Axiom should work together, and make that the default setup. > > This was done long ago at IBM. Peter Broadbery has provided patches > for the open source version of Axiom to support Aldor. Tim has > incorporated all of these patches into the more recent version of > the Axiom distribution except the actual build script that creates > the libaldor library. This is available from the Axiom Wiki website: > > http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/AldorForAxiom Ah! OK, I didn't pick up on the fact things were so far along. Cool! > > I know the BOOT vs. Lisp vs. Aldor debate could go on, and > > may yet, but for now let's go with Tim's Lisp work and the > > current Aldor.org compiler. I don't (think) those issues > > will depend on having the compiler source code - am I wrong? > > Hmmm... well it's not open source if we don't distribute the source > code, is it? :) Very true. And me being the open source fanatic too ;-). > But we could at least distribute Axiom with a fully functioning > build option to integrate with a previously installed binary > version of Aldor. That makes more sense. > > I think I recall it being said that the interpreter needed to > > be educated about Aldor, for example? > > No, this works now. Wow! Nice. > > Does that make sense, or is it too risky? I think that's more or > > less what's been going on of late anyway, but it might help to make > > it an "official" project goal so people can be confident they > > aren't working at cross-purposes with the main Axiom project. > > I don't think it is risky but I doubt we will convince many people > until they see downloadable Aldor source code. True. I wouldn't be convinced either, ordinarily. But since it is pretty clear nothing significant is going to happen with SPAD unless we have no alternative, I figure we might as well make some progress on the areas we do have current access to. > > ... > > OK. On that basis, do my earlier suggestions make sense? > > I think we can complete the integration of the Aldor interface > build into the Axiom distribution. One sticky point is that > currently this requires the installation of the Sun Java > development system. Hmm. OK. I suppose GCJ isn't up to the job yet? > Not everyone might want to do this just to > install Axiom + Aldor. But I rather think we should go ahead > with it anyway for now and just make sure that Java is only > required if the user chooses to build the Aldor interface. Makes sense. > > Out of curiosity, does anybody know what the language of the > > Aldor compiler is? > > Aldor is written in "C" and Aldor. OK. Is it like Axiom was, needing a running Aldor to compile a new Aldor? > > IIRC it can target a couple different languages for compiler > > output(?) but I don't recall what language it's actually > > written in. > > Aldor can generate code that runs with a stand alone run time > environment written in "C" or it can generate Lisp. When Aldor > is used within Axiom it generates Lisp that is compiled by GCL > the same way that the output of the SPAD compiler is compiled. Nice. > > Hmm. OK, so you suggest we first get Axiom as it stands over to > > Aldor and then proceed with any low level design changes, if any > > are warranted? > > Yes. Initially only the Axiom library code written in SPAD would > be converted to Aldor. The rest of Axiom would remain the same. Makes sense. The Linus Torvalds approach - incremental change. > > ... > > I know Axiom is supposed to be founded on category theory and/or > > set theory, but does anybody know where the real "core" of that > > logic resides? > > That is related to discussion in the earlier thread about the > nature of the SubDomain construction. At least some of this > "logic" resides in the SPAD compiler itself. That could > potentially be a problem in the effort to convert the Axiom > library to Aldor since Aldor does not implement this "logic" > in the same way. OK. > BTW, I do not think that it would be correct to say that Axiom > is founded on category theory as such. The use of the word > category in Axiom is quite different. But still in many ways > Axiom is compatible with many of the ideas of modern category > theory. > > It is more correct to say that Axiom is founded on set theory > but only is a rather loose way. Hmm. That could make for some challenging documentation work. > > I always figured that was the most fundamental mathematical > > part of the code, but maybe I'm wrong. > > Maybe we could agree that it is a kind of exaggeration? :) Well, darn ;-). > > I was kinda hoping Axiom could serve as a modern, computerized > > Principia Mathematica++. (Interestingly, if a first edition is > > available, might it be out of copyright? Perhaps we could > > incorporate the Principica Mathematica itself, or a variation, > > as a literate document!) > > Sometimes your suggestions are quite "nuts" - do you know that? ;) But of course! But then, my vision of Axiom always was rather grandiose. I think things like the QED manifesto sound like good ideas, so I probably am a bit nuts ;-) > > OK. I take it the compiler itself doesn't contain the definitions > > of any of the algebraic types or constructs? > > You mean the SPAD compiler? Yes there are some but all of the hard > work has already been done in the design of Aldor. There are some > constructs that don't translate. But (maybe) these are not important > to the goal of converting (most of) the existing Axiom library to > Aldor. (See related thread op cit.) Will do. Cheers, CY __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
