[Axiom-developer] Re: .spad, .input, .as and autocoercion

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:

| On 08/16/2007 12:11 PM, William Sit wrote:
| > Martin Rubey wrote:
| > 
| > > I have used Aldor, SPAD, the Aldor interpreter and the axiom interpreter
| > > quite intensively, and found the combination Aldor + axiom interpreter
| > > formidable.
| > > 
| > > What I found most impressive is that the axiom interpreter is designed
| > > well enough to work seamlessly with new packages.
| > 
| > Since you do find the axiom interpreter helpful and indeed getting the types
| > right (your examples are not particularly impressive to me because the names
| > and signatures are quite unique and only the arguments need be matched), why
| > aren't you and Ralf in favor of improving the compiler so that the compiler
| > can be equally helpful?
| 
| Because I believe we will end up in something like Maple or Mathematica.
| I constantly hear people complain that they don't understand what
| Mathematica is actually doing internally.

Notice that not because people will explicitly write out coercions
means they understand what the compiler is doing internally.

[...]

| > Documentation is constantly being added and revised. I don't consider
| > documentation "pain," because it is necessary. I do consider
| > spending time to rewrite interpreter code into compiler code a waste
| > of time and therefore "pain".
| 
| Being also a mathematician, I clearly understand your point. But
| Computer Algebra deals with constructive mathematics.

Coercions in mathematical programs don't the programs less constructive.

-- Gaby