The LL language. [arf6] [dpm7] [djg18] [arf7]

Andreas Arff
28 Apr 93 15:52:31 +0100


> > I still am wondering why we need a Low Level Language?  I thought the
> > purpose of this group was to build an advanced operating system for
> > our 386 PCs to replace DOS, Windows, and so on.  I can see refraining
> > from using the 386 segmented memory for the sake of making our OS more
> > portable to other architectures, but this group is begining to look
> > like an advanced operating system research project.  I don't think
> > that was the point.

I have no objection against what you say. It is very true, but...

> We were trying to make it portable.
> I think that we should start kicking out "interesting" ideas that haven't been
> done b4 -- I think it was Hoare that suggested that language designers firmly
> resist the temptation to use any of their new untested ideas.
> If we continue debating new (research) ideas we'll never have a system.
> >
> > As for a Low Level Language, what's wrong with a compiler to 386
> > machine code?  I will admit that this requires writing assembly code
> > to the compiler writers interfaces, but it means we don't need to
> > write our own compilers and LLL interpreter.

Why must the code be compiled. I remember reading about an old language
that compiled the code whenever a program were started (it was most certainly
the system that did this, but it is only a vague memory:-). The user didn't
even notice it (or at least that is what was said)! You would gain the speed
of a compiled language, and the "object code compability across platforms".

> > I will admit one thing, that having "object code compatibility
> > *across* platforms" for selected executables would be a good thing,
> > but this means, to me, that we have native mode executables and
> > portable executables, and that we use native mode for the entire
> > kernel, for most class implementations, most utilities, and many
> > applications.  Some classes, utilities, and applications get done as
> > portable executables.  General network distribution of applications is
> > a reasonable use for portable executables.

Actually, if this was an intel OS only, I wouldn't care less about this
issue, but since this is not, a translated language becomes interesting.
IMHO I don't think speed would be an improtant issue here, I don't mean
we should sacrifice speed, only that it will be about equally fast.

> > David
> Michael


PS. Is it normal to use large Y in You, Your and Yours in letters posted to
a company, to sound polite? It hasn't much with Moose to do, but could
someone please tell me. DS.

Still Me
sig.'s in for 1000 miles service
        --Andreas Arff