On 8/10/07, C Y wrote: > --- "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. >
Well, actually I think that was just a misunderstanding on Tim's part. Other emails on this list from Mike Dewar of NAG have made it clear that NAG would have had no objections to releasing an open source version of Axiom that required a running Axiom to compile. > ... Regards, Bill Page. _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
