Dear Tim, Bertfried, * Bertfried Fauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dear Tim, > > thank you for your long mail and the invitation to a coofee which > I took while reading... I'd like to second that, although I did not have coffee available. (should go on Axiom's wishlist, I suppose) > Perhaps I may add, that as a _user_ of AXIOM, I am totally ignorant to its > internal struggles (bild process from scratch, historical accidents, etc), > but that I need to focus my resources. I am not a programmer, but need to be > able to develop own functionality. So I would vote for a system having 1 > internal language (lisp, C++, ...) and probably one toplevel language (Aldor, > spad, ...). Any further mixing prevents a _user_ from even making first > steps. Although I can really understand Bill's concerns, especially given the current style of the lisp code, which really looks like translated Boot, not Lisp. Well, Tim confirmed this in point 13. My hope is that the *final* Lisp code will be crystal clear, even to non lispers. Thus I think that the current version is a good compromise: use boot as the documentation... I hope that with patch 56 this need will be gone. Martin _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
