* Re: [9fans] New language?
@ 2002-07-17 7:33 Fco.J.Ballesteros
2002-07-17 8:21 ` Lucio De Re
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Fco.J.Ballesteros @ 2002-07-17 7:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> More seriously, I'm happy to work further on Alef, but I have long
> ago accepted Bell Labs' view that maintaing the libraries is a
> disaster.
Is there any way to generate them automatically or to permit
Alef to bind to C ones somehow? Does it use different conventions
in the object files?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] New language?
2002-07-17 7:33 [9fans] New language? Fco.J.Ballesteros
@ 2002-07-17 8:21 ` Lucio De Re
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Lucio De Re @ 2002-07-17 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 09:33:55AM +0200, Fco.J.Ballesteros wrote:
>
> > More seriously, I'm happy to work further on Alef, but I have long
> > ago accepted Bell Labs' view that maintaing the libraries is a
> > disaster.
>
> Is there any way to generate them automatically or to permit
> Alef to bind to C ones somehow? Does it use different conventions
> in the object files?
>
I assume that Bell Labs have looked at this, although not all their
decisions have been entirely flawless.
As I read it, it's a bitch because the procedure call interface is
different from "C". I haven't looked at the internal details, and
I'm less than confident that I would get very far. If forsyth
chose to get involved (or rog, perhaps) we'd have a strong chance.
But if things settle down, it may well be worth it. In addition,
Alef is still experimental, it can pick up quite a lot from Limbo,
if the interest exists (I didn't realise how many features of Alef
I had overlooked in my initial study of it - some of them are
probably obsolete, even, others may be extremely useful).
If the interest is there, I'm happy to put some effort towards
keeping Alef alive. I am not sufficiently up to date, in an academic
sense, to drive language-based changes, though.
++L
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] New language?
2002-07-17 5:45 ` GBA
@ 2002-07-17 6:23 ` Lucio De Re
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Lucio De Re @ 2002-07-17 6:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 10:45:02PM -0700, GBA wrote:
>
> Don't know much about Limbo, but have you seen this?
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html
>
What, no tuples?!
More seriously, I'm happy to work further on Alef, but I have long
ago accepted Bell Labs' view that maintaing the libraries is a
disaster.
I see the "D" people mention "versioning". I'm insufficiently
knowledgeable to decide whether that is something I would appreciate
or despise. I know NetBSD is hooked on it (in the sense that meat
hangs from hooks in refrigerators, sadly) because of their use of
dynamic libraries.
I guess that makes it a useful solution, if you can't get rid of
the problem in the first place.
++L
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] New language?
2002-07-16 17:09 ` [9fans] New language? Sam
@ 2002-07-17 5:45 ` GBA
2002-07-17 6:23 ` Lucio De Re
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: GBA @ 2002-07-17 5:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
Don't know much about Limbo, but have you seen this?
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html
> Too true. What then, a new language based on C pulling the
> yummy stuff out of limbo? One that's not interpreted, without
> a garbage collector, and no atend >:), but that has tuples, array bounds
> checking, etc? At this point should we just considering loosening up
> Oberon a little and making a few additions?
>
> I'd be willing to help so long as we fix the BCPL inherited '&'
> precedence.
>
> Sam
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [9fans] New language?
2002-07-16 17:28 [9fans] more extensions Howard Trickey
@ 2002-07-16 17:09 ` Sam
2002-07-17 5:45 ` GBA
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Sam @ 2002-07-16 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> be harder than it appears. And there comes a point
> where an extension changes the flavor of a language
> a little too much, and I think this one might be over
> that line.
Too true. What then, a new language based on C pulling the
yummy stuff out of limbo? One that's not interpreted, without
a garbage collector, and no atend >:), but that has tuples, array bounds
checking, etc? At this point should we just considering loosening up
Oberon a little and making a few additions?
I'd be willing to help so long as we fix the BCPL inherited '&'
precedence.
Sam
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-07-17 8:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-07-17 7:33 [9fans] New language? Fco.J.Ballesteros
2002-07-17 8:21 ` Lucio De Re
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-07-16 17:28 [9fans] more extensions Howard Trickey
2002-07-16 17:09 ` [9fans] New language? Sam
2002-07-17 5:45 ` GBA
2002-07-17 6:23 ` Lucio De Re
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).