--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, thanks for the explanation. > > Since I'm not in the business of cloning Aldor, I'm not sure how that > affects Axiom. The discussions I am seeing so far seem to largely indicate that we need to take SPAD in the direction Aldor went, at least to start with. This is not surprising as Aldor itself was intended to fix problems with SPAD, as I understand the history. > I don't see a point of cloning Aldor. > I see great benefits in an improved SPAD. Certainly. But an improved SPAD probably can't help but look something like Aldor, since Aldor was in some sense an attempt to do a better SPAD. > | > You don't need a language to do *just* mathematics in Axiom. You > also > | > need a language to communicate with the world around. All major > | > systems for computation mathematics have grown into that > position. > | > Don't get blindsighted. > | > | I would prefer to let the Lisp level handle the outside world as > | much as possible. > > But you still need to specify what that does to a SPAD program. Just > delegating to Lisp does not solve the fundamental problem. I guess it depends on the details of how such things are handled. You are proposing to have code at the SPAD level talk directly to things like external libraries? I guess my thought on that was to use CFFI/other lisp tools to talk to the external libraries, and then use the lisp level to present an API to them to SPAD. Admittedly that's rather vague, but hopefully we would only have to solve the SPAD<->Lisp part of the equation and leave all the other messy details out of it. > | What are you referring to by communication? Exporting > | algorithms as Fortran code? Interacting with C libraries? File > | and Data Input/Output APIs? > > All of that, including interfacing with nay reasonable language used > in the computational science community -- that list goes beyond > Fortran and C. Indeed. C++, Java, Python, Haskell, CAML, ML, various proof languages... more I'm sure that aren't leaping to mind. You know more about those things than I do Gaby, so perhaps the difficulties are less severe than I am imagining, but I was under the impression that translating from one language to another is highly non-trivial. Particularly if the program is written in such a way as to assume communication only with other Java/C/ML/etc. programs. Lisp's FFI systems are probably among the most general solutions to such problems, and even they have a host of issues. And if we want to eventually support formal verification and proof generation multiple languages could exponentially complicate the question - in such circumstances we would have to query libraries not just for functionality but for proof that said functionality is correct - and how do we verify the proof matches the implementation in an external library we may not even have source code for? md5 sums some kind? I wish I knew more about such things. I suppose at some level any Turing complete language can express ideas expressed in other languages, so perhaps there are techniques I'm not aware of. Cheers, CY ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Online degrees - find the right program to advance your career. Www.nextag.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $310k for $999/mo. Calculate new payment! www.LowerMyBills.com/lre _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
