[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]Melody
From: |
Marco Manfredini |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU]Melody |
Date: |
Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:22:15 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010801 |
Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Marco Manfredini <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>>>2. Expand GCC so that it can compile from all its supported
>>> languages to Melody-based Portable Executables.
>>>
>>No.
>>
>
> Hmm... if your idea doesn't give us support for running
> applications that are written in C or C++, then my level of
> interest is decreasing rapidly.
>
Oh..C++ is MY language. I would die if I couldn't code dotGNU in C++.
I think I was too unclear about this. I was about to -nothing- to
say, about gcc-C/C++ due to a lack of competence from my side [about if
gcc can be changed to produce either Java, IL or Melody for C/C++].
So I basically try not to make too many suggestions for gcc, except to
say that Melody wouldn't be harder than Java or IL.
But for melody, I had f.e. specifically C++ in mind, when I described
the "let" statement which introduces a new scope. The "let" describes an
expression which evaluates with a certain name-binding. The name-binding
has an initializer and a cleanup. "let" gives Melody the ability to
describe scope/destructor semantics in object-code, which would make it
clearly superior to bytecode, where scopes and scope-cleanup cannot be
recognized anymore.
The advantage is the following: Now the compiler hasn't got to specify
anymore, how scope cleanup has to be /implemented/ during an exception.
He only needs to say, what has to be done for cleanup.
This makes it possible to map C++ exceptions to the exception framework
of a specific virtual machine, without the need to code too many
specific implementation details into the compiler.
Btw. One of my objectives is, to investigate if C/C++ can be made an
M$-IL language, without M$'s proprietary extensions, because Melody
contains enough informations to integrate C++ into M$-IL. I.e. if the
runtime integration can be done using only the means defined by the ISO
Standards.
>
>>No. The idea is to make Melody strong enough to generate Java or IL if
>>required, thus requiring only one portable executable format for all
>>times.
>>
>
> Well, since (for strategic reasons) we need to be "downward
> compatible" to .NET, I think this is not going to work out for
> DotGNU.
>
Hmm..Doesn't it look like we'd have this:
* Every dotGNU language can compile to Melody.
* Every Melody can be compiled into IL.
* Every Melody can be compiled into JavaVM.
* We can support framworks that work unter JavaVM, IL and Melody.
* The Melody-Framwork is better, because it has a more sophisticated IL.
* Proprietary Implementors must support dotGNU if they want to benefit
from Melody
* dotGNU runs best on free Platforms.
The only problem I see is, that Melody would be the Super-Assembler we
don't want give proprietary implementors for free. Anyway, I don't stil
quite understand the issues around gcc fully (i.e. isn't C already a
super assembler?) so I'd need thinking about that.
Greetings,
Marco
- [DotGNU]Yet another volunteer, Marco Manfredini, 2001/08/05
- [DotGNU]Melody, Norbert Bollow, 2001/08/06
- Re: [DotGNU]Melody, Marco Manfredini, 2001/08/06
- Re: [DotGNU]Melody, Norbert Bollow, 2001/08/06
- Re: [DotGNU]Melody, Scott Lanham, 2001/08/06
- Re: [DotGNU]Melody,
Marco Manfredini <=
- Re: [DotGNU]Melody, Norbert Bollow, 2001/08/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Melody, Marco Manfredini, 2001/08/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Melody, Scott Lanham, 2001/08/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Melody, Marco Manfredini, 2001/08/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Melody, Scott Lanham, 2001/08/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Melody, Norbert Bollow, 2001/08/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Melody, Norbert Bollow, 2001/08/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Melody, Mike Hoolehan, 2001/08/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Melody, Marco Manfredini, 2001/08/07
- [DotGNU]Architecture Neutral Distributed Format., Hans-Olof Danielsson, 2001/08/07