The LLL subproject

[Brian T Rice]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, James Michael DuPont wrote:

> --- Brian T Rice <water@tunes.org> wrote: > I'm starting to wonder who
> > I'm starting to wonder who here actually understands the Tunes
> > concepts
> > and is actually paying attention any more. Bill Tanksley and Marc
> > Santoro
> > come to mind as competent guys who were once interested. I wonder if
> > my
> > bringing the project to a decent definition point may be too late for
> > anyone involved to care any more. Tell me that I am wrong, someone!
>
> I cannot say that I understand anything of tunes at all. But I do
> understand what is being done with normal assembly language, with java,
> parrot and dotgnu runtimes,Also with the current perl interpreters.
>
> Does the LLL have anything to that?

Not really. See http://tunes.org/new/LLL/ and
http://tunes.org/new/LLL/goals.html

particularly the part about not relying on a standard virtual machine for
interoperability. There is an entirely different architecture that we are
proposing, which is far less centralized and offers many advantages, but
isn't possible without a more expressive run-time system.

In most cases the code from those projects is not well-suited to adapting
to the use of building the LLL anyway. Even Squeak's self-hosted VM is not
a good candidate for this. Some exceptions might be in bits and pieces
such as a socket implementation, but that type of thing is very common
and adaptible from several other sources in possibly a much better way.

I am qualifying with "possibly" only because we don't have an exact
specification yet, not because I know of no better solutions.

-- 
Brian T. Rice
LOGOS Research and Development
mailto:water@tunes.org
http://tunes.org/~water/