HLL is not against LLL

[Dr. J. Van Sckalkwyk (External)]

Dear all

Fare wrote..

>    So here are some assumptions:
> * we want our OS to be and distributed over heterogeneous networks.
> * we want it to be standalone and dynamically extensible.
> * we want to have a implementation as quickly as possible.
> * we want it to be as efficient as possible in the above limits
>    Do anyone disagree ?

> * because we want to be standalone, we must be able to generate new code
>  on the fly, be it compiled or interpreted, or a mix between the two.
> * because we want the implementation to be efficient, we must be *able*
>  to compile code to the lowest possible level.
> * because we want to run quickly on multiple platforms, we must write some
>  generic, portable code.
> * Thus, we must have some portable low-level code somewhere, which is written
>  in low-level languages.
> * Hence we need have some low-level language(s).
[snip/slash/hack,burn]
> cell size, macros to access data, etc. Actually, the whole system can be
> done by expanding macros (see the stuff in the pre-release of 0.0.0.20).
>    Then, I'd prefer the HLL to be defined asap, so the "macros" can be
> converted into valid HLL (meta)-programs.
>
Ahem. About a year ago [sigh] the tunespeople were talking about 
something similar. Where have things come since then? As I attempted 
to say then, we need some common level of implementation (somewhere) -
 I proposed a very KISS-esque "symbolic assembly language" (SYMBAL) 
with (perched on top)  a higher level that was simple, interpreted, 
and with the facility for slotting in compiled code. 

Have we not yet decided what our cross-platform low level 
implementation language is going to be?? (surely not C, surely not a 
different language / different assembler for every platform)? BTW, 
have microkernels been totally abandoned?

Just interested.

Bye, JVS.