On April 10, 2007 12:22 PM Gaby wrote: > > "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > | why that happened. Although I do think that Lisp is an important > | programming language, I fear that Axiom's association with Lisp > | is of very little benefit to Axiom. It seems that very of the > | already very few student Lisp programmers are really interested > | in Axiom... > > We should all view Lisp as just an *assembly language* for the > Axiom runtime system. Any argument that elevates Lisp to the > level of Axiom on whatever ground completely misses the whole > point. Lisp, as any other assembly language in a high-level system, > should be rarely be advertised. It is of interest only to those > who want to go under the cover and dismantle the system -- there > are very people of those.
Personally I agree with your conclusion, however I have been waiting the last few years for some more Lisp-oriented people to appear who are interested in participating in the Axiom project. > We may very well just have an Axiom Virtual Machine that does > not require full Lisp power. Yes. Aldor for example provides a "C" run-time environment that is in essence a "Lisp" virtual machine. It is conceivable that Axiom could be re-written in Aldor running in this environment - although that would be **lot** of work. > > Spad and the computational aspect is what we want to advertise. > > BTW, it would be great if either you or Alfredo can make a new > Windows binary (from build-improvements or wh-sandbox, whichever > builds). > I am willing to help anyone who wants to do this. I created the previous Windows binary distribution more than two years ago. I could do it again now but I think there would be greated benefit if someone else also participates in this task. Regards, Bill Page. _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
