Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:04:18 -0200
Brian Rice wrote:
> I'd have to agree with Jecel here. It seems against the grain of designing
> reflective systems to give them more hoops to jump through to make
> reflection workable. This is certainly the case when you decide to
> implement more features than are absolutely necessary, or include any
> services that are not as simple to describe as possible for the core
> language. You'll just be adding unneeded complexity in the long run, IMHO.
> To provide contrast, I am developing an interface to my Arrow prototype
> from a Lisp interpreter written in Smalltalk. Most of the design changes
> involve simplifying the features of the parser, so that the more
> complicated translation issues can be made by using the interpreter itself.
> But then, most of the issues involve conceptual shifts that programmers
> haven't before addressed. The point is that it seems to be a much simpler
> feat to implement features within the reflective framework than to develop
> the framework to support the feature set.
Definitely, I agree with you. I expressed myself poorly in the original
message; I intend to make the core as simple as possible, and implement
all additional functionality within the framework already provided by
the interpreter. By 'features', I really meant changes in the language
core's design - with the ultimate goal of making it fully reflective.
Anyway, I'll soon be sending out some design ideas I've had for the
alisp implementation. Criticism is expected and required, as always :)
"Jesus would make a good main character for a Seinfeld spinoff" - Amber
I am very paranoid and support the use of ridiculously strong 2048-bit
encryption for espionage^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hprivate communication. My
public PGP key is available at pgp.surfnet.nl; alternatively, email me