high level language design

[delikat]

Hello, I have been interested in this project for quite some time, but only
recenlty had a chance to absorb some of the documentation.  I would like to
make some comments and I hope you can forgive me if I restate some things as
I have not had a chance to keep up and it has been some weeks since I read
the whole text.

I sent mail to Fare' a few weeks ago regarding a possible design for the HLL
and he suggested that I send comments to this list.  if you don't like my
input please tell me so and I will stop.

first-- I am a software consultant at Compuware Corporation and have been in
software development for six years now.  my hobbies have been Linux, and
language development.  I have designed dozens of programming languages in
the last ten years ( probably more but there is a certain similarity between
many so
they don't count ).  I also like to consider new operating system concepts I try
to keep up with what the industry is doing, but it is rarely ever truely new.
My experience has brough me to wish for an OS very similar to what you are
developing.  therefore I feel bound to contribute to this project. however I
have a full time job, a wife and 1 year old daughter plus some of my own
projects to work on, the good news is that my own projects may be of use to you
in your work, and I planned to make much of it freeware so you are welcome
to it.
well enough of that -- to work.

a note: I tend to use some terms in a slightly different way than what is
generally accepted, and some other terms have no generally accepted definition
I will try to provide all the information I can but if something sounds wrong
let me know and I will try to claify it.

I was reading about your language requirements and some messages from the
mailing list and found a few comments regarding the design that I felt needed
some consideration.  Someone mentioned that the low level language should
evolve into the high level language...  In the work that I have done I have
found that three languages are actually a good starting point.  the first is
actually a pseudo assembler which is capable of managing objects as well as
most procedural software constructs, the second is a rather raw behavioural
object oriented language which provides little internal security.  the third
is a strict message passing scheme which is highly secure and pure object
oriented.  the reason for the three levels is in the requirements, each language
adds some of the requirements  to the final design.  the pseudo assembler
provides attributes and behaviours as well as the basic software data
elements, the second level provides a complete object oriented environment,
the third provides message passing, distributes processing, and system level
security.
the second and third languages may or may not have anything in common. they
should not ahve anything in common with the first one.

I was very excited to see that your system will be version aware, I do not know
if you have considered yet but one of the benefits of this is the use of
software written in older versions of a language, it allows a design to be
radically changed without having to re-write all previous code.  so there is
no reason to sweat over functions that may removed.  I have found that this is
a key feature in the OS of the future.

well I have no more time left this morning, I will try to keep in touch, I
am not yet on your mailing list, but I hope to get on soon...

thanx for your attention.
-dav

Dav Delikat ; computer analyst/thinker/father
Jody Delikat ; writer/mother
delikat@mixcom.com ; http://WWW.ripon.EDU/Alumni/DelikatD/index.html
"A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be
tightened into place, but a seed to be planted and to bear more
seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of idea."
   -- John Ciardi