Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!netcom4!haahr
From: haahr@netcom.com (Paul Haahr)
Subject: Re: On-the-fly code generation
In-Reply-To: smcl@sytex.com's message of Fri, 31 Mar 1995 05:15:51 GMT
Message-ID: <HAAHR.95Apr6160858@netcom4.netcom.com>
Sender: haahr@netcom4.netcom.com
Organization: NETCOM On-line services
References: <bakulD69s9w.44D@netcom.com> <55aT3c1w165w@sytex.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 15:08:58 GMT
Lines: 13

> 1. That's the spirit, IMHO. Lean but fairly mean implementations
> via byte code/vm with an out when it matters via translation to
> machine code. I think some other language implementations do just
> this for various reasons, such as portability of compiled code
> (ScriptX and OpenBoot come to mind, but correct me if I'm wrong).

ScriptX compiles to byte-code, not to machine code.

I thought OpenBoot was just a forth interpreter with no compiler, but
that could have changed.

(I'm not presenting an argument against the technique, just that I think
the examples are wrong.)
