Moose specs: Revision 0!
Gary D. Duzan
duzan@udel.edu
Fri, 12 Feb 93 19:39:19 -0500
=>Gary D. Duzan said:
=>:
=>: True, but what can we do? If we can get a compiler for a good
=>: object-oriented language that will compile on a number of different
=>: machine, that would be great, but not, I think, too likely. I suppose
=>: we could try to get a number of language/compiler design people to whip
=>: up a language and GCC front-end for us to use if we really wanted to,
=>: or maybe use an existing language and develop a GCC front-end for it. I
=>: hate to say it, but C++ looks like the way to go for now. As long as we
=>: specify the interfaces and abide by them, we should be able to make it
=>: language-independant. It might be a good idea to develop a Smalltalk
=>: interface in parallel.
=>
=>Or as you mentioned come up with a new language that will implement all
=>the features and constructs we need and want. There is a lot of
=>research going on in the languages field and perhaps we gould take some
=>of the best from each. I personally would enjoy doing this and am sure
=>there are others who would. Let me here how everyone else feels!
We have to be careful not to overextend ourselves. We are, after all,
a fairly small group. If we're going to do this then we should probably
advertise in comp.lang.* for some language/compiler design people to
join us. We could do parallel development something like this:
OS Group Language Group
-------- --------------
OS Specification Discussion Language Specification Discussion
OS Prototyping in Draft Language GCC Front-End Development
and Begin Assembly Implementation
OS Implementation in Language Native OS Compiler Port
Expanded Device Driver/GUI Programming Tool/Shell
Implementation Development
Or something like that, anyway. It would be nice to have a good,
solid language to work from. We just have to decide if we want to
do it or not.
Gary Duzan
Time Lord
Third Regeneration
Humble Practitioner of the Computer Arts