Moose Requirements & LLL followup [djg21]

[Gary D. Duzan]

In Message <9305020505.12947@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> ,
   Michael David WINIKOFF <winikoff@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au> wrote:

=>> 
=>> Quoting two messages from Michael David WINIKOFF
=>> 
=>> >Mouse?
=>> 
=>> Mouse is optional and therefore not REQUIRED.
=>
=>I'd suggest that it's pretty pointless to have people using a GUI without
=>a mouse.
=>
   However, the GUI is also optional, as stated.

=>I know it can be done but I see nothing wrong with insisting that people have
=>Mice. This isn't the 80's anymore :-)
=>
   Substitute "pointing device" for "mouse" in the GUI case, and I
will agree. We should also keep touch screens and tablets and such
in mind.

=>> For the sake of the above mentioned commerial applications and
=>> shareware developers, we need to have a distribution method other than
=>> source.  For the sake of portability we should have some method of
=>> distribution other than system-specific binary.  This leaves us with
=>
=>Not neccessarily. 
=>Firstly I'd argue that portability AT THAT LEVEL is not an important goal.
=>You can easily achieve portability by recompiling.
=>What counts is SOURCE CODE PORTABILITY.

   However, there would be a certain advantage of having a manufacturer
produce a single LLL distribution and allow the user to run it on the
hardware platform platform of his choosing. Otherwise, the user is at
the mercy of the manufacturer's whims on supported hardware.
   Personally, I think this is a moot point since I think it very
unlikely that many, if any, software manufacturers will be writing
software for MOOSE.

=>The only reason you'd want binary portability is for process migration which
=>is irrelevant as WE ARE NOT DEVELOPING A DISTRIBUTED OS.

   True, and I've never been fond of the idea of trying to support
process migration in a heterogeneous distributed system, anyway.

=>> Anybody want to discuss meta-classes?  Should we support meta-classes?
=>> This might solve the upgrade problems, and even allow any developer
=>> that felt the need to design a new interpreter.
=>
=>What's a meta-class? 
=>
   A class that generates other classes as output.

   If we want to use our own HLL, how about using Ellie? I've been
poking around with it on and off for a couple years now. It is
designed as a language to support adjustable grained parallel
objects.  In place of classes, Ellie uses a technique called
interface inclusion, where the interface of a local object is added
to the interface of its surrounding object.  Any object can be used
as a prototype to create a new type. The syntax is simple but
powerful, since everything is an object, including types, methods,
and functions.
   I wrote a lexer and started on a parser about a year and a half
ago, and I've decided to dust it off and see if I can get it working
as an interpreter. It is written in G++, so it should be fairly
portable. If anyone is interested in Ellie, you can FTP several
papers on it from ftp.diku.dk:/pub/diku/dists/ellie/papers.
Unfortunately, there is no compiler available that I am aware of.

                                        Gary Duzan
                                        Time  Lord
                                    Third Regeneration
                         Humble Practitioner of the Computer Arts