[Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC

[didier deshommes]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bill Page <address@hidden>
Date: 31 juil. 2007 18:00
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC
To: didier deshommes <address@hidden>


On 7/31/07, didier deshommes <address@hidden> wrote:
> ...
> How much of Axiom is written using Aldor?

None of the open source version of Axiom is written in Aldor.

> Will it become an important part of Axiom in the future?

Many people hope so.

> Does Axiom really need Aldor?

Aldor is the "2nd generation SPAD" compiler. Compared to SPAD, Aldor
is very pleasant to use. It gives meaningful error messages and
implements a subset of Spad that is very convenient for many
programming tasks (esp. full implementation of dependent types).

> I'm asking because Aldor is mentioned a lot on this list, even though it is
> currently a product that has incompatible license with Axiom (and was
> even previously a closed-source program).
>

So was Axiom. In fact what Axiom was a commerical program Aldor was
included with Axiom. It is just a historical accident based on the
personal motivations of the people involved in the decision to open
source Axiom that Aldor was not already included when Axiom was made
open source. Unfortunately now the people involved at NAG have a
different idea about what they want to do with this software.

> I'm not a developer, so I don't know how important Aldor is to Axiom.
> If it's really important, than maybe Axiom should consider changing to
> a more accommodating license. If not, I say we forget about Aldor (and
> maybe even build something better).  It seems to me that one year from
> now, we will still be talking about this and not much progress will
> have been made.
>

That might well be the decision made by the Axiom project based on
similar comments to this effect previously made by Tim Daly. I have
previously argued that that will have a negative impact on Axiom's
future and I am still of that opinion.

Regards,
Bill Page.