Hi Ralf,
I think you have made an excellent observation.
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> with a clear specification it doesn't matter whether the compiler is
> written in Boot, SPAD, LISP, or C or Haskell. The compiler should be
> called if needed. Why would the language it is w
Hello,
On 07/27/2007 11:46 PM, C Y wrote:
I'll make one more stab at asking my question, using a more concrete
illustration this time.
Gaby's slides reminded me of the ongoing Lisp vs. Boot situation we
have in the Axiom project - there are two camps both firmly committed
to Lisp or Boot respec
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The substantial difference is that one between a plateform specific
> assembly language (such as x86) and a portable high level language
> (such as SML or Haskell).
I am curious about the goal. Is it to write a new
compiler/interpreter/runtime for a
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| Yes. So what we can do is take (for example) CCL with a bunch of
| Axiom-specific optimatizations as was done by NAG and just bundle it
| with Axiom. We don't need to call it Lisp. It is just becomes the
| abstract machine level for Axiom. Over time, moving
On 7/28/07, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Bill Page wrote:
>
> | On 28 Jul 2007 07:36:29 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > [...]
> | >
> | > | If I understand correctly, Aldor does not in fact re
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| On 28 Jul 2007 07:36:29 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > | If I understand correctly, Aldor does not in fact require Lisp at all?
| >
| > Indeed, and that is a Good Thing (TM).
| >
|
On 28 Jul 2007 07:36:29 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | If I understand correctly, Aldor does not in fact require Lisp at all?
>
> Indeed, and that is a Good Thing (TM).
>
But Aldor does have FOAM which in most respects is still
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| If I understand correctly, Aldor does not in fact require Lisp at all?
Indeed, and that is a Good Thing (TM).
-- Gaby
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is not an accurate description of the situation since
> Boot is written in Lisp and it is *part* of Axiom. In other words no
> matter what we do, Axiom is written in Lisp. Period.
Currently, true. As we have discussed earlier, Lisp is regar
On 7/27/07, C Y wrote:
> I'll make one more stab at asking my question, using a more concrete
> illustration this time.
>
> Gaby's slides reminded me of the ongoing Lisp vs. Boot situation we
> have in the Axiom project - there are two camps both firmly committed
> to Lisp or Boot respectively.
>
I'll make one more stab at asking my question, using a more concrete
illustration this time.
Gaby's slides reminded me of the ongoing Lisp vs. Boot situation we
have in the Axiom project - there are two camps both firmly committed
to Lisp or Boot respectively.
Unlike the question of literate prog
11 matches
Mail list logo
