[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Axiom-developer] Re: Aldor and Axiom

From: C Y
Subject: [Axiom-developer] Re: Aldor and Axiom
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 06:22:25 -0800 (PST)

--- Ralf Hemmecke <address@hidden> wrote:

> >> How do we resolve things like Aldor's libalgebra vs. Axiom's
> >> libraries?
> > I would propose that we forget about Aldor's native libraries for
> > now (as nice, though limited, as they are).
> If I knew where to hook libaldor into Axiom, I would already have
> done  so. But libaldor basically starts from zero and for Axiom the
> whole construction of the domains and categories is still mystical
> to me.

Me too, particularly if Axiom's use of cagetories is different from
mathematical category and set theory - so much for the starting point I
had been intending to use ;-).  Darn it, that would have made it so
nice - I could have read up on the research on set and category theory,
and (tried to) make a literate document containing both the human level
algebra foundations and the computer level algebra foundations.

Perhaps "understand Axiom's domain and category construction" should be
item #1 (or maybe 0) on our "conversion to Aldor" roadmap.  Any attempt
that doesn't involve a firm understanding of that is probably going to
result in Massive Confusion, at best.

> In any case if SPAD should be translated to Aldor one has to start
> with some domain or category. There should be a clear cut. Something
> that the compiler knows and something that is added through 
> libraries. If that interface is clear than we can talk again about
> whether we use the Aldor libraries or not.


> >> Are we planning to completely document and update the SPAD
> compiler?
> > I would choose "no", although if time or experienced people became
> > available this might be interesting for historical reasons.
> I would also choose "no".

OK.  If we're going with Aldor for sure that of course becomes much
less interesting.

> It seems that we will somehow start in the middle. Introduce a
> cutpoint and work up the ladder to build the Algebra. And maybe work
> down in order to also write the basic code in Aldor until the
> bootstrapping problem is shifted to bootstrapping the aldor compiler.

Makes sense to me.  I thought the logical cutpoint would be where the
"core" algebra logical framework was defined, but it sounds like that
might be sort of mixed up between knowledge in the SPAD compiler and
the algebra files?  If I've understood that correctly I would say
that's the problem we need to attack first.

> >> a)  Document SPAD compiler, foundations in mathematical theory,
> >> core structures of Axiom algebra
> >> b)  Identify and document "core" functionality, which is to say
> >> functionality which a large part of the Axiom system depends 
> >> on.  Debug code and concepts, possibly implement unit test
> >> framework.
> >> c)  Work our way up the ladder, so to speak.  Higher level
> >> functionality documented as the underpinnings become well
> >> documented and well defined.
> > 
> > I would replace a) with conversion of the Axiom library to
> > Aldor, but the rest seems great to me.
> Yes, Cliff, that's it. Axiom needs a kind of future plan. And 
> translating SPAD to Aldor is a clear task in my eyes. That will
> probably take several years anyway, since documentation should be
> added at the same time.

Agreed.  Am I correct that the logical starting point is to identify
where the compiler ends and the math begins (whether it is set/category
theory or Axiom's domain and cagetory implementation or whatever) and
get the core parts documented and working on top of Aldor?


Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]