Re: [Axiom-developer] Project directions

[Bill Page]

On 7/28/07, Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Bill Page wrote:
>
> | On 28 Jul 2007 07:36:29 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> wrote:
> | > C Y <address@hidden> writes:
> | >
> | > [...]
> | >
> | > | If I understand correctly, Aldor does not in fact require Lisp at all?
> | >
> | > Indeed, and that is a Good Thing (TM).
> | >
> |
> | But Aldor does have FOAM which in most respects is still a good subset
> | of Lisp.
>
> Yes, but the point is that, unlike Axiom, Aldor does not require a Lisp
> compiler or runtime system.
>
> | And for Axiom's sake Aldor is designed so that it's runtime
> | environment can be easily re-targeted to Lisp. So it is not really
> | accurate to say "does not require Lisp at all".
>
> Lisp is optional, not a requirement as for Axiom.
> If you don't have Lisp you can still write and run Aldor programs.
> That is not the case for Axiom.
>

Yes. So what we can do is take (for example) CCL with a bunch of
Axiom-specific optimatizations as was done by NAG and just bundle it
with Axiom. We don't need to call it Lisp. It is just becomes the
abstract machine level for Axiom. Over time, moving towards more Boot
and more SPAD code, less of Axiom needs to be written at the abstract
machine level.

What is the substantial difference?

Regards,
Bill page.