HLL and its semantics
Mon, 3 Jul 1995 01:21:48 -0400 (EDT)
> > I don't think we need to specify a standard LLL for TUNES.
> In the short term, I agree with you. As a long-term goal, however, I
> disagree. The issue here is not platform independence, but source
> language independence. I don't think that we're so blinkered as to
> believe that our HLL will be the only language used under Tunes.
So you see the LLL as a target language for the HLL compiler and all
other languages who wish to interact with Tunes. I don't think that's
a very good move because that means we restrict Tunes "system"
services (the services which other languages might need) to a low
level of abstraction (don't we agree that this is bad for Tunes ? We'd
end up with a LL OS and a HL language just like conventional systems).
I think that the other languages that want to talk to the OS will have
to do it in the HLL (for exemple you could write a Prolog compiler in
our HLL, or just extend the HLL to support logic programming). This
(talking to the OS in the HLL) is to be expected if we want the HLL to
BE the OS.