Kyle Lahnakoski
Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:49:46 -0400 wrote:

> >I
> >had brought
> >up the issue of optimizing Joy programs; there had to be an
> >intermediate
> >interpretation of the Joy program before it can be optimized.  The
> >"labels" approach described above is exactly that.  I do admit that
> >there could be a method of optimization, maybe one that uses code
> >pattern mappings, to optimize without an intermediate stage.
> Nope; the labels contribute NOTHING to optimization.  There is no
> intermediate form of any kind.  

Technically, you are right.  Why do you suppose programmers, that make
optimizers, desire these "labels" at an intermediate stage?

> OTOH, with your system there IS an
> intermediate form; unless I miss my guess, you're converting this stuff into
> a set of tables containing IDs, and doing lookups on those tables.

DBOS has 3 stages:  ObjectCode (source code), MSM (system
representation), and compiled code.  These are the same three as Joy
would have.  Maybe Joy replaces compiled code with a VM.

> >This is a different type of problem than just renaming, or
> >changing parameter order.
> Fortunately, both of those things are considered bad ideas -- so much so,
> than in your system it's impossible for the author to change parameter
> order.

I do not understand your statement.  The parameter order never mattered
in the first place, changing it has no effect.

> -Billy

Kyle Lahnakoski                                  Arcavia Software Ltd.
(416) 892-7784