From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <775b8d190604161114jc2e5769gbd667c2e2e58ac8f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 04:14:26 +1000 From: "Bruce Ellis" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Writing device drivers In-Reply-To: <9ace7fab302e01632bf26fc5cfc6c6d5@terzarima.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <549c814d7d27c530a83808843de00619@9netics.com> <9ace7fab302e01632bf26fc5cfc6c6d5@terzarima.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 378e2f72-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 indeed - translating clean C to dis is not hard - i had a discussion with dennis about this many years ago. but, as i think charles was implying, you would get the "why doesn't X11 compile" etc. because they are full of egregious hacks and non portable code clouded in ifdefs. brucee On 4/17/06, Charles Forsyth wrote: > >i was thinking of writing a javascript to bytecode compiler -- > >think rc split into a compiler and an execution unit. > > that's what charon's does, and surely the others don't do otherwise? > but that emphasises the real problem: ecmascript+java/jscript extensions = is the tiniest part > of the least of your worries when implementing `javascript'. > it's similar to compiling C to Dis: in many ways that's not too hard > but it's what people expect that will then do that creates the consternat= ion. >