Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: bootstrap Meta/Boot

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

"Bill Page" <address@hidden> writes:

| On 8/9/07, Tim Daly wrote:
| >
| > In the IBM/NAG days you needed a running Axiom to build Axiom.
| >
| 
| I believe that is one of the things that allowed Axiom to become so
| advanced so quickly (relatively speaking). Axiom's library code is
| highly circularly-dependent as a result. This structure makes Spad a
| very expressive language indeed. (Probably even more expressive than
| Python by most common measures.)

It is odd to state, but Axiomatizers should not underestimate the
power of abstraction. 

Not because the whole system is mechanically translated to assembly
code means that the system should actually be written in assembly
code.  Think Unix, think C.  Think Spad, think high level.

Fortunately, Boot is already written in Boot and we have a 2-3 stage
Boot-strap. 

-- Gaby