Sat, 10 May 1997 14:27:59 -0500 (CDT)
BRIAN SPILSBURY <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I can't think of any portable threading systems, but it should be
> relatively easy, this is where people want to think if they want
> a continuation passing style system, or one with chunky stacks.
The easy Forth solution would be a stack-based thread implementation.
However, Forth is very flexible, so perhaps CPS could be supported. I
would think that building it from scratch would be biased toward a
Scheme implementation as CL is rather daunting.
Hey, CMU-CL experts, how hard would it be to get CMU-CL to generate
bytecodes, or Forth? Should be easy, unless the backend is really
biased toward a register based machine implementation.
> > - Forth scales poorly, but I do propose getting to a Lisp language
> > fairly quickly.
> Yeah, it would be interesting to see a toy lisp-over-forth system.
> There may be one already around, I'll have a look over the web.
Good luck. I've never seen or heard of one. Like I alluded to earlier,
a Forth programmer good enough to write lisp-over-forth would say "why
should I? Forth is perfect!" On several occasions I started a Scheme in
Forth, but never got very far.
> but I think its a great idea, and if you haven't hit the nail on the head
> you're not far off.