Quoting Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
... Anyway, I find the idea of luring Python developers into Axiom by showing them how you can write Spad/Aldor programs in Python and vice versa very, let say, curious.
I suppose by "very, let say, curious" you mean something like "crazy", "silly", "doubtful", "waste of time", etc. ? I am not sure why you should feel this way. Do you think that there is no hope that proponents of Python will ever find any advantage in static typing? Certainly programming in Python seems (at least initially) much easier and faster than in Aldor because there is no need to specify types.Specifying correct types requires extra discipline and analysis at the start of a project. Similarly, ignoring types until run-time testing can (in principle) lead to requiring more time in testing and debugging in the last stage of a project. There was a lot of discussion of this by Python users a few years ago and some from of static typing is apparently scheduled to be part of Python 3. As Axiom users we have an additional reason to be concerned with types upfront that has to do with mathematical rigour. Not only do we want the program to be correct but we also want it to accurately reflect or represent the formal structure of the matematical objects that we are manipulating. On the other hand, showing Axiom programmers that in some ways Spad and Aldor are not so ancient and unique might also be a good thing. Could you elaborate on why you say it is "very, let say, curious"? Regards, Bill Page. _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
