--- "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, considering the long history of Axiom and its predecessors,
> that's not surprising. But once you *have* Axiom capable of compiling
> itself, do you really need the underlying scaffolding, or can you
> take it down and just use the building?
You take it down only if you are sure you will never again need to
re-build the building.
I am quite sure the original team probably reached the same conclusion,
but the fact remains that the original system had to be re-bootstrapped
by Tim for public release. So we already have one example where the
loss of the scaffolding was a major inconvenience.
> -- I much prefer, as you seem to, higher-level abstractions in
> programming languages. You may need a hierarchy of languages to get
> there, but do you need it forever?
The bootstrap problem occurs when languages become divorced from their
original implementations in another language - i.e. you need a working
binary and have no source to compile to create that binary that doesn't
require the same working binary. If you can guarantee that you will
always have a running cross-compiler this is workable, but it seems a
dangerous assumption to make.
Interesting you should mention Forth, by the way - in the discussion of
what constitutes the minimum path for a "hard bootstrap" on
comp.lang.lisp Forth was suggested as a good way to get the most
functionality for the least amount of low level machine/assembly
coding. I'm currently trying to track down some older work that was
done on implementing Lisp in Forth.
Cheers,
CY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
