C Y wrote:
>> Incidentally, I "do" have Dick Pountain's "Object-Oriented Forth",
>> which is probably as good a reference for implementing other
>> languages on a Forth base as you're likely to find anywhere. If
>> you're in the mood to re-invent a wheel or two, I'd recommend
>> starting there.
>
--- "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't have these in print, but they are both from the Journal Of
> Forth Applications Research (JFAR). It used to be in Rochester, NY,
> but appears to have found a home on line at
>
> http://dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/forth/jfar/index.html
C Y wrote:
> --- "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I may have that buried somewhere -- at one point I acquired just
>> about everything I could on Forth, and I never threw it away. What
>> was the title/author/date? A couple of other paths:
>
> The papers, which I can't fin
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| Does anyone actually think further debate will achieve anything?
No. In fact, this has become a moot point as of today.
-- Gaby
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ralf,
>
> I agree 100% with you. Removing BOOT *could* be a goal, but I
> definitely would choose the SPAD option over LISP any day. In fact as
> I understand it and as has been stated by some of the original Axiom
> developers on this list, this was ex
On 8/11/07, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> On 08/10/2007 05:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Tim wrote:
> >>> Fortunately in the brave new world we seem to inhabit, there is no
> >>> sticking place for your objection. You can create your own branch and
> >>> thus recontruct Meta in Meta and Boot in Boot
On 08/10/2007 05:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim wrote:
Fortunately in the brave new world we seem to inhabit, there is no
sticking place for your objection. You can create your own branch and
thus recontruct Meta in Meta and Boot in Boot.
Ralf wrote:
And whoever wants to rewrite everythi
On 08/10/2007 06:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, why do you think it is so essential that the underlying language of
Axiom must be LISP?
I don't. In fact, we've had discussions about using Aldor all the way
down. I don't have the time to rewrite everything in Aldor.
But you have time t
On 8/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> In any case I've distributed the original sources to the world. Since
> you raised the issue it appears that you would rather have a different
> building strategy than we currently use. You have the original
> sources so you're welc
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2005-11/msg00211.html
From: Mike Dewar
Subject:Re: [Axiom-developer] letting my mud settle
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:40:09 +
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:09:23PM -0500, Bill Page wrote:
> I am not aware
--- "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I may have that buried somewhere -- at one point I acquired just
> about everything I could on Forth, and I never threw it away. What
> was the title/author/date? A couple of other paths:
The papers, which I can't find:
http://portal.acm.
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
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Derive
>
> Derive is a fantastic program and often outperformed everything else.
> It is historically interesting, in the "Newton's Notebooks" sense.
>
> I have spent the last few months trying to convince TI to either
> release the original derive lisp code (whic
"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > Now, it you know Spad, them I claim you know Boot.
|
| Uh huh ... and if I know Lisp 1.5, I know Common Lisp and Scheme, right?
I don't know. What do you think?
[...]
| I'm not sure how the inventors of it f
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Now, it you know Spad, them I claim you know Boot.
Uh huh ... and if I know Lisp 1.5, I know Common Lisp and Scheme, right?
If I know Algol 60, I know CPL, BCPL, B and C? In some sense, yes, I do.
I'm simply saying that it's a tremendous burden to need to deal with
more
C Y wrote:
>> -- 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
"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| >> But does it really need so many sub-languages?
| >
| > Well, that's a religious question.
| >
| > Some on the wailing list feel that Meta and Boot should be recovered,
| > made strongly typed, and closer to the
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| Quite true. However, Lisp (at least in the eyes of some) offers a lot
| in a single language.
As does any modern assembly language.
[...]
| * I'm actually trying to get ahold of an old thesis on implementing a
| small Lisp in Forth
If you're going to
"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > In fact that is open to debate, by reality check. The only "good"
| > Common Lisp compiler I know freely available is SBCL, and we don't
| > support it right now. And Common Lisp actually gives you very little
--- "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 bu
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apparently these problems can be solved but only with a radically
> different build approach than is used now in Axiom, as demonstrated
> by the Axiom fork project.
Eventually, my understanding is we will head in a similar direction.
> > Such a trend le
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> But does it really need so many sub-languages?
>
> Well, that's a religious question.
>
> Some on the wailing list feel that Meta and Boot should be recovered,
> made strongly typed, and closer to the algebra language. On the plus
> side it will be claimed that these
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> the one that I think has the strongest legs is Erlang
>
> Funny you should mention that as I'm half way thru the new Erlang book.
> This model, if not the language itself, is a perfect vehicle for an
> implementation of provisos (much discussed on this list). Using clos
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> In fact that is open to debate, by reality check. The only "good"
> Common Lisp compiler I know freely available is SBCL, and we don't
> support it right now. And Common Lisp actually gives you very little
> support to write useful programs.
Well ... SBCL is a re-write
"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| As a user who can't quite find the time to get involved with Axiom on a
| deeper level, I must say I find the plethora of languages in the Axiom
| development scheme quite daunting. Let's see: there's Axiom, Boot, SPAD,
| Aldor *and* C
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On 8/9/07, Tim Daly wrote:
> | >
> | > In the IBM/NAG days you needed a running Axiom to build Axiom.
> | >
> |
> | I believe that is one of the things that allowed Axiom to become so
> | advanced so quickly (relatively speak
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 8/9/07, Tim Daly wrote:
| >
| > In the IBM/NAG days you needed a running Axiom to build Axiom.
| >
|
| I believe that is one of the things that allowed Axiom to become so
| advanced so quickly (relatively speaking). Axiom's library code is
| highly cir
On 8/9/07, Tim Daly wrote:
>
> In the IBM/NAG days you needed a running Axiom to build Axiom.
>
I believe that is one of the things that allowed Axiom to become so
advanced so quickly (relatively speaking). Axiom's library code is
highly circularly-dependent as a result. This structure makes Spad
28 matches
Mail list logo
