Re: [Axiom-developer] BAD tim

[Martin Rubey]

Dear Tim, Bertfried, *

Bertfried Fauser <address@hidden> writes:

> Dear Tim,
> 
>       thank you for your long mail and the invitation to a coofee which
> I took while reading...

I'd like to second that, although I did not have coffee available. (should go
on Axiom's wishlist, I suppose)

> Perhaps I may add, that as a _user_ of AXIOM, I am totally ignorant to its
> internal struggles (bild process from scratch, historical accidents, etc),
> but that I need to focus my resources. I am not a programmer, but need to be
> able to develop own functionality. So I would vote for a system having 1
> internal language (lisp, C++, ...) and probably one toplevel language (Aldor,
> spad, ...). Any further mixing prevents a _user_ from even making first
> steps.

Although I can really understand Bill's concerns, especially given the current
style of the lisp code, which really looks like translated Boot, not
Lisp. Well, Tim confirmed this in point 13. My hope is that the *final* Lisp
code will be crystal clear, even to non lispers.

Thus I think that the current version is a good compromise: use boot as the
documentation... I hope that with patch 56 this need will be gone.

Martin