Tunes activity, LLL

[Dr. J. Van Sckalkwyk (external)]

Dear joyous tunespeople,

Fare wrote:-

> * Relaunch talks about the LLL
>   I suggest we use our own FORTH dialect as a LLL.
>   Why not start with the ANS FORTH specifications, or Postscript,
>   then modify it when we find the semantics do not fit the project ?

Yaargh. I **really believe** that _any_ language you create must take 
a few good ideas and explore the development of these from the bottom 
up, rather than being the bastardization of someone else's ideas. But 
I am sure that I do not know enough about the above specs to comment 
with any degree of accuracy. Do you have the specs in a file 
that you can email to the group, or where can we FTP them?

>   Begin coding the GC in LLL.
>   Begin implementing the LLL in asm using techniques like eForth,
>   that we can refine later.

No point, if we don't know what we are doing and where we are heading!
Last time I tried making a few tentative suggestions, someone who 
doesn't know the difference between an interpreter and a compiler 
poured piss all over them.

>   Why wait for the HLL ? Everything is ok, as soon as we write it in
>   a modular way, and are ready to modify it to fit further requirements.

Bullshit. Modular crap is still crap. Also, you are making too much 
fuss about HLL vs LLL. The HLL should fit logically and seamlessly 
onto the LLL, and will not do so if the two are designed at different 
times by different people.

 > > * Open a subproject about object migration.
> * Reviewing existing languages and existing systems on top of which to
>   implement Tunes, and what techniques are involved.

Excellent ideas.
 

JVS