HLL is not against LLL
Dr. J. Van Sckalkwyk (External)
Sun, 30 Jul 1995 11:15:32 SAT
> 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).
> 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?