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!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!usenet.cis.ufl.edu!caen!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!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.GC7E1.0UL@nmti.com>
Sender: peter@nmti.com (peter da silva)
Organization: Network/development platform support, NMTI
References: <9410190420.AA02904@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <38bihm$4vk@info.epfl.ch> <id.LH3E1.QR1@nmti.com> <38loi6$3u1@info.epfl.ch>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 15:59:07 GMT
Lines: 27
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.misc:18472 comp.lang.scheme:10711 comp.lang.tcl:20976 comp.os.linux.misc:31098

In article <38loi6$3u1@info.epfl.ch>,
Stefan Monnier <monnier@di.epfl.ch> wrote:
> In article <id.LH3E1.QR1@nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <peter@nmti.com> wrote:
> > 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.

> Do you really think it's frequent in elisp to generate code on the
> fly, for example ?

I don't know. I don't use elisp. I *do* frequently generate code on the fly
in my own scripting, even in the shell:

	while read blah
	do
		....
	done | sh

An extension language that didn't provide this cheaply would not be useful to
me.
-- 
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?"
