HIGH and LOW
Jecel Assumpcao Jr
Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:49:49 -0300
Dr. J. Van Sckalkwyk (External) wrote:
> Jecel (for whom I have immense respect, both because of his
> articulate communication and obvious comprehensive grasp of "low
> level" programming) wrote:
Thanks. As an IC designer, I often see microprogramming as
high level and assembly language as very high level!! On
the other hand:
> The base semantics (BS) is what every program can count on.
> Ah! But that's the problem. Fare has NO BS. Period. If there is a
> common level, (??) it's somewhere way up in the so-called HLL.
I have no problem with having a very high level base
semantics. An enhance Scheme is fine with me. If the
HLL is the base semantics for Tunes, what is wrong with
> miss a chance to generate good code on CPUs that have this
> as a single instruction. If you do 3D graphics "by hand"
> in your application, putting a hardware accelerator won't
> help at all.
> Which is why it is SO important to define your minimum necessary BS
> as accurately as possible. This is what we should be talking about
> (after we shoot Fare)!
Well, it might evolve as the system is built and used for
a while. I really prefer good designs, but they only come
after much experience.
The way to "shoot Fare'" is to present a great design for
Tunes that people will like and understand and will be able
to work on. And I am not sure that is possible, given the
differences in objectives and tastes that I have seen here
so far. If I learned anything in these 12 years building
Merlin is that you can never please everybody.