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!eff!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!fletcher
From: fletcher@netcom.com (F. Sullivan Segal)
Subject: Re: GNU Extension Language Plans
Message-ID: <fletcherCyI07D.330@netcom.com>
Organization:  bottom up!
References: <9410190420.AA02904@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <id.EH4E1.VG2@nmti.com> <fletcherCyE3I7.Hso@netcom.com> <38s0el$alq@jetsam.ee.pdx.edu>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 18:18:48 GMT
Lines: 44
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.misc:18558 comp.lang.scheme:10791 comp.lang.tcl:21110 comp.os.linux.misc:31460

In article <38s0el$alq@jetsam.ee.pdx.edu>,
Marcus Daniels <marcus@ee.pdx.edu> wrote:
>>Either all compilers have to be built into the binary, or they have
>>to be compiled into the bytecode supported by the virtual machine.
>
>Really?
>
This quote is taken somewhat out of context.  My statement was meant
to argue that for the language to be integral to the extension language
so that an 'eval' is no more expensive than executing a normal line
of code, the language interpreter needs to be either built into the 
binary and thus available as a single operation, or could be built
up from multiple operations none of which specifically implements the
language, but which when combined do.

Taken in reference to the article I was replying to, which stated that
any new language would have to be compiled in (again in order to be an
integral language in the system), I offered an additional alternative.

>>While a bytecode GCC doesn't seem feasible, a bytecode TCL interpreter
>>doesn't seem to present any hideous problems.  
>
>Why not?

Why not have GCC run in bytecode?  Well, an interpretive GCC would 
probably be a little too slow to use.  

Why doesn't TCL present any hideous problems to implement in bytecode?
Well, it is small, simple, and written in C, so it could be compiled 
using GCC into byte-code.  

--
                           -F. Sullivan Segal
_______________________________________________________________
 _
/V\  E-Credibility:  (n -- ME) The unguaranteed likelyhood that
 '   the electronic mail you are reading is genuine rather than
someone's made up crap.
_______________________________________________________________
GCS d-- p--(---) @c++ u e-(*) m+(-) s/+ @n++ h--- f+ g+(--) 
    w+(+++) t++(-)@ b5++ yij++ r(dm)+ y+(*)

Mail to: fletcher@netcom.com

