Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.tcl,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!nmtigw!peter
From: peter@nmti.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: GNU Extension Language Plans
Message-ID: <id.LH3E1.QR1@nmti.com>
Sender: peter@nmti.com (peter da silva)
Organization: Network/development platform support, NMTI
References: <9410190420.AA02904@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <388u56$1gh@agate.berkeley.edu> <id.YD1E1.VHK@nmti.com> <38bihm$4vk@info.epfl.ch>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 23:52:53 GMT
Lines: 16
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.misc:18344 comp.lang.scheme:10541 comp.lang.tcl:20783 comp.os.linux.misc:30627

In article <38bihm$4vk@info.epfl.ch>,
Stefan Monnier <monnier@di.epfl.ch> wrote:
> That's why I think using scheme as an intermediate language is not
> a good idea. I think a lower level language would be better, forcing
> a compile no matter what language you write the thing in.

I can't agree. A compile step automatically makes for a lousy extension
language, unless all the compilers are built into the binary. For a lot of
uses the extra fork/exec overhead is by itself too high. And if all the
compilers are built into the binary, then they're the extension languages
and the "low level" one is an implementation detail.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                            `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated                 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd.     Sugar Land, TX  77478  USA
+1 713 274 5180                       "Hast Du heute schon Deinen Wolf umarmt?"
