> Yes, safer code is among expected benefits. Concerning speed: AFAIK > there is no inlining between Aldor and Spad code.
Yes, THAT is a big problem. I don't know if Peter has a solution for this. > So if you use Spad types from Aldor (via interface) all operations > would go via function calls and consequently almost all Aldor > optimizations will be ineffective. True. I guess developing addon packages with Aldor will probably only work nicely, if the whole library is compiled with Aldor including the bootstrapping process. Not a simple task, methinks. > So you will get better speed only when all time-critical parts will > be pure Aldor. IIUC in your interface few basic Spad types are > entirely replaced by low Aldor types, but my impression is that Spad > compiler can profitably inline more than that. Yes certainly. But it would be nice if Aldor had a mode that is as lax with the type checking as the SPAD compiler and so would the aldor compiler would be equally fast. I guess only compile time speed would convince you to switch to Aldor. I also understand that for development it is important to allow compilation of a file and including the compiled code it into a running without having to recompile the whole system. I see some benefit for the future of FriCAS if its library is fully compiled with Aldor, because Aldor can also produce libary code that could be used by other systems. In particular there might be more interest from the Sage community in using it and perhaps also developing it. We are still lacking developers. :-( Ralf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fricas-devel/bc544d1a-16d8-e71e-56e1-18357785a4f9%40hemmecke.org.
