--- Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > if 1) GCL is currently deficient for axiom use in some regard and 2) > we have difficulties addressing said deficiencies via changes to GCL. > If both of these are true, I would greatly appreciate you and/or > others letting me know the details, as it is and has been a goal of > mine to ensure that gcl remains optimal for axiom use.
Camm, while it cannot (yet) be said to be part of Axiom, the cl-web code does not work on GCL at the moment. There are two obvious things I know of and probably others I don't (yet): 1) read-sequence doesn't seem to be present in GCL 2) I'm using trivial-utf-8 for string->array and array->string functionality, and I don't know how or if that would work on GCL. > I must say I'm less than enamored with the cl-foo library development > model. Its source level as opposed to binary, and there is no shared > library memory savings. Beyond which, there really doesn't appear to > be much of anything available which is not provided elsewhere in > faster, smaller, shareable C libraries, though I haven't made any > exhaustive study here. I'm sure there are a lot of opinions on this one. I'm not quite clear as to why the source level is objectionable (don't we simply compile it at build time anyway?). I like the all-lisp solution for the simple reason that it avoids any reliance on the behavior of the C language or compilers, but that's just me. > The primary goal should be in fulfilling the ansi-standard and > supporting applications from the past, while offering non-standard > interfaces to newer functionality in external shared C libraries. > Do we really think cl-fad has a thirty year lifetime ahead of it? Is there any reason to suppose it does not? If it does not, why not? Can it be improved to the point where it DOES have that lifetime ahead of it? Will the problem it solves go away as Lisp implementations improve? > How will we coordinate with all these cl-library developers external > to the axiom project when they move on to other things in life? > Will we read all their source and maintain it ourselves? If that source is literate (in the true literate programming sense) this should actually be possible. Also, if the solutions developed are good enought that not many changes NEED to be made, it becomes even more viable. The core of TeX has not changed in any major way for a LONG time, and it is STILL the best tool for the problem it solves. This is the kind of development I would like to see Axiom pursue - the solution of problems in such a fashion that there is no need or incentive to solve them again. There should be NO dark corners or black magic anywhere in the software chain. We should be able to look up the code for any point in the process, and read the explanations for purpose and method wherever we need to. I know this is not possible at the moment, and maybe not for decades, but it is still a goal I would like to work towards. Anyway. Thank you for the work you have been putting into GCL to help support Axiom! My only concrete question at the moment really relates to read-sequence - is this something GCL plans to add? Cheers, CY ____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
