Let's hack some code
Alaric B. Williams
Wed, 30 Apr 1997 18:12:57 +0000
On 29 Apr 97 at 1:15, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> First-class Continuations would of course trivialize threads,
> as well as being of great help to support the Schemists among LispOSers.
> If you fear about the power of duplicating continuations,
IIRC, it's possible to implement them without efficiency loss.
Is that correct? Either use a linked list instead of a stack
(calls would take longer, but we'll inline many of 'em, right?),
or use a stack, treating the EIP return value in the x86 case
as an implicit continuation parameter, with the actual continuation
reified as the stack pointer, and clone stacks when continuations
are reified - faster calls, slower call/cc. I'd go for the non-stack
approach myself, but I'm not an expert implementer.
> Also, there's a lot to recycle from the Fox project at CMU -- the
> only OS I know (besides the dead OSes of LispMs) written as a set of
> modules and functors in a higher-order functional language.
Yes. The language-research community seems to work like so:
Professor X invents a cool new way of doing something, and
designs a language that does this.
Therefore, we get lots of languages that are really good at a set of
things, but there is no sharing... when somebody writes a language,
they often have a concept to demonstrate in mind. It's no surprise
this is a "commercial failure". Only as these languages persist
and grow (like Lisp) do they become "successful".
It takes a non-academic group to harvest a cropp of REALLY good
ideas, of which there are plenty, and make something that implements
MOST of them!
> == Fare' -- email@example.com -- Franc,ois-Rene' Rideau -- DDa(.ng-Vu~ Ba^n ==
Alaric B. Williams (firstname.lastname@example.org)
---<## OpenDOS FAQ ##>---
Plain HTML: http://www.delorie.com/opendos/faq/
Fancy HTML: http://www.deltasoft.com/faq0000.html