[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to")
From: |
Zenaan Harkness |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to") |
Date: |
Sat, 03 Jul 2004 04:57:55 +1000 |
On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 02:46, Tom Lord wrote:
> That'll change, I predict, within our professional lifetimes.
> There are plenty of people who actively work on reducing the proven
> theory into pragmatic practice. But it'll be a few years more
> before Scheme is as handy to reach for as C.
Sorry - I guess this is in essence the answer to my previous questions.
Still, I'm open to further enlightenment.
> The resulting Scheme-generator can wind up being very fragile: a
> seemingly innocent change can trash the output you'll get from a
> Scheme compiler, even if the VM machine code you were aiming for is
> conceptually very simple.
Do you mean to imply this will never change?
> 3. At the same time, although Scheme has the famous denotational
> semantics in the standard, it also has a famous but not-formalized
> _operational_ semantics. Putting it crudely, there is a well
> known idealized "Scheme Machine" -- a virtual machine (essentially
> Furth-like) on which Scheme is easy to implement.
>
> The optimizations of an optimizing Scheme compiler apply when
> translating Scheme to a Furth-like VM but, much more importantly,
> describing (in VM terms) the desired translation for a piece of
> code is fairly easy.
>
> In other words, sometimes it's much easier to write something that
> generates code directly for a Scheme VM than to write something
> that generates Scheme that produces that same VM code.
>
>
> 4. Therefore, in a sense, while Scheme is _abstractly_ an ideal
> intermediate language for many high-level languages, tiny and
> large, a Furthish Scheme VM is _pragmatically_ an ideal
> intermediate langauge.
>
> Targeting the VM directly, rather than via Scheme, means that I
> don't have "trick" a Scheme compiler into generating exactly the
> VM code I want.
It does sound very interesting. I missed the start of the thread, so
I'll have to go back and find a link to furth now :)
> So it's not (from the arch perspective) that I want to compile Pika
> to Furth VM. Rather, it's that:
>
> a) we need some high-level language tools in arch
>
> b) all such language can reasonably be written to translate
> into Furth
>
> c) Furth is practical in the same way that arch is practical:
> relatively small and simple.
You really know how to get minds going - it's too exciting. Here's a
proposal to this list:
Once any of us start to get going learning Furth and/ or anything
related eg. targetting/ compiling to it, could we start a new list for
us to post all our ongoing experiences?
Then people like myself or others so inclined and/ or experienced, can
assemble and refine this over time into the "O'Rielly book" that addicts
keep clambering for (BTW, Docbook is _the_ markup to use).
> It's sort of like I can commit to a Furth VM without precluding
> what the high-level language tools in arch look like beyond that.
> So, that's what I'm doing.
"sort of"? I guess, as in, Furth is still so young we don't actually
have other language compilers targetting it, but it should be relatively
straightforward to implement?
> > Then the question is whether it make sense to use scheme in config
> > files...
>
> Often not, I suspect.
My lack of scheme and functional "grok" was the only thing that made
things difficult for me with Emacs. However, I used vim for 1.5 years,
Emacs for 1.75 years, and vim for the last 3 years, and now I want to go
back to Emacs and never really return to vim. Emacs has _actual_ client/
server implementation (vim makes some "server" claim which is a poor
excuse for such, simply a command-sender from the client to the actual
vim (ie. the vim displaying your files), which is ... pointless!) Sorry,
OT now...
> The next question is whether it makes sense to
> use a Schemish-VM to interpret any tiny languages that do show up
> in arch. I think: "yes".
:) ... as in, how many (mini or otherwise) languages do you envision
'showing up'? :) :)
regards
zen
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), (continued)
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Robert Collins, 2004/07/02
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Colin Walters, 2004/07/02
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Colin Walters, 2004/07/02