Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:58:19 -0700
On Mon, Oct 19, 1998 at 08:34:59PM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> My point is, let's just not go there, that would be continuing
> the kind of mistakes that current OS's make by priveling one
> language (or at least one set of calling conventions) over all
> others. Instead, let's have some standard method for accessing
> services that is reasonably language-neutral and easy for a
> compiler writer (compiling *whatever* language) to cope with.
I've come to the same conclusion. However, for all of the reasons you
cited in your email I don't thin kit's practical to come up with a
language neutral way to deal with it.
I'd much prefer to use a VM which allows extensions for every
language. That way the language can describe it's needs in it's own
terms. Sure, it can describe a basic implementation in terms of some
lowest common demomenator, however, then someone can later go in and
optimize the LISP case if they so choose.
There is a fine line, when doing this, between just distributing
source, and coming up with a usefully abstract but specific VM
representation. For many languages/applications, people are not
comfortable releasing source, thus the need for some compiled form.
David Jeske (N9LCA) + http://www.chat.net/~jeske/ + firstname.lastname@example.org