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

Michael David WINIKOFF
Wed, 28 Apr 93 22:35:24 EST

[Long discussion about LLL deleted]
But David -- you can't interrupt now -- they're having so much fun :-)

> 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.

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.  
> 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.  

> David
> -- 
> David Garfield/2250 Clarendon Blvd/Arlington, VA 22201   (703)522-9416
> Email: or


Michael Winikoff
Computer science honours. University of Melbourne, Australia.