[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Axiom-developer] Re: Mostly about MuPad (was: Philosophy... )
From: |
Martin Rubey |
Subject: |
[Axiom-developer] Re: Mostly about MuPad (was: Philosophy... ) |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:25:16 +0200 |
Dear Bill,
unfortunately, I have too little time to answer everything... Especially some
of #1 to #6 need more thinking before I answer.
Bill Page writes:
> Could you explain what you mean by "statically typed"? I don't think Aldor
> and Spad could be said to be statically typed either. I agree that in
> contrast to Aldor and Spad, Mupad is not "strongly typed". And this is
> exactly my point.
Hm, I thought that static typing means that the type of a variable is known at
compile time, which is clearly the case in Aldor/Spad but not necessarily in
the Axiom interpreter. As far as I know, it is not the case at all in MuPad.
I don't really know what strongly typed would mean. According to wikipedia,
it's meaning depends on the person using it :-)
> The "type hierarchy" in MuPad was more or less directly grafted on to MuPad
> in version 2. Version 1 of MuPad looked almost identical to Maple release 4
> and had essentially no concept of type at all. But the structure of these
> programming languages have diverged greatly in MuPad versions 2 and 3 and
> Maple from versions 7, 8, 9 and 10. Maple by deliberate design has no
> concept of type at all (the "assume" facility notwithstanding). Both MuPad
> and Maple are taking very different paths towards a more complete "object-
> orientation", and neither are really similar to Axiom.
I find current MuPad quite similar to Axiom. There are domains, categories and
similar stuff, but it seems that Axiom handles this things a lot stricter than
MuPad.
> >> In a sense, Axiom is/was an experiment in the application of strongly
> >> typed programming languages in computer algebra and to be quite honest
> >> and blunt, for the most part the experiment seems to have failed. :(
> >
> > No, most of it has been transformed into MuPad.
>
> I disagree. In spite of what MuPad has borrowed from Axiom, it seems to me
> that so far MuPad has implemented only a small part of the original concept
> of the Axiom designers.
Well, I admit that I don't know MuPad well enough to judge. In any case, I'm
only talking about the design, not the amount of stuff actually implemented...
Martin
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Failure of Axiom? (was: Static versus Dynamically typed) ), (continued)
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Failure of Axiom? (was: Static versus Dynamically typed) ), William Sit, 2005/09/23
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Failure of Axiom? (was: Static versus Dynamically typed) ), Martin Rubey, 2005/09/23
- RE: [Axiom-developer] Failure of Axiom? (was: Static versusDynamically typed) ), Bill Page, 2005/09/23
- RE: [Axiom-developer] Failure of Axiom? (was: Static versusDynamically typed) ), Bertfried Fauser, 2005/09/23
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Failure of Axiom? (was: Static versusDynamically typed) ), M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, 2005/09/24
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Failure of Axiom? (was: Static versusDynamically typed) ), William Sit, 2005/09/24
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Philosophy..., smustudent1, 2005/09/23
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Philosophy..., M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, 2005/09/24
- [Axiom-developer] Re: Philosophy..., Francois Maltey, 2005/09/22
- [Axiom-developer] Mostly about MuPad (was: Philosophy... ), Bill Page, 2005/09/23
- [Axiom-developer] Re: Mostly about MuPad (was: Philosophy... ),
Martin Rubey <=
[Axiom-developer] RE: DistributedExpression (was: How can I get every term of an expression ?), Page, Bill, 2005/09/21
[Axiom-developer] RE: DistributedExpression (was: How can I get every term of an expression ?), Page, Bill, 2005/09/21