On Maude

Alexis Read ucapare@ucl.ac.uk
Mon Jun 16 10:26:03 2003

Erm, apologies as i've accidentally deleted an email from a newbie on
objects and stuff, so comments as I can remember them (if you could
re-send the bmaude links I would be very grateful!).

The point about talking about this two years ago, was that this very
discussion about creating bmaude was mooted then. Most people have been
very busy with work / life commitments to be able to implement bmaude and
it appears that BOBJs original creator has got there first (a good thing
as he knows more than we do about the subject!).

Personally I believe working with maude2/ bmaude extension is the best
start on a future OS.

The point about the object definition was that abstraction of an object
refers to being able to manipulate the object completely at a meta level.
However, technically to have complete abstraction you have to be able to
have complete control of this meta-representation at a meta-meta-level and
so on ad. infinitum. i.e. the language / algebraic spec must be prefectly
reflective (as I said, i'm re-stating the obvious here!).

By attributes I was half inferring maude/BOBJ attributes of operators
and statements, that def falls neatly in line with yours.

I have very little time at the moment (as with the past 2 years) as I am
finishing off my thesis. With that out the way I'll hopefully contribute a
lot more to this thread of effort.

I wouldn't get depressed about things - it is really just a question of
time for something to happen if there are clear abvantages for it. Maude
and BOBJ have appeared to have taken great steps forward whether the TUNES
group have put their weight there or not, and as you seem to be leaning in
this direction for development you have something to smile about!