Re: [9fans] Compiling 9atom kernel WAS: Re: spaces in filenames

[smiley@zenzebra.mv.com]

Anthony Sorace <a@9srv.net> writes:

> because it's a huge amount of work. there's a whole pile of standards and
> pseudo-standards to deal with, the set is ever-growing, the components are
> ever-growing, and there isn't really a good definition of "correct".

Perhaps there's a "Plan 9" way to approach the problem which might
involve a "less-huge" amount of work.

Suppose the functionality of each component of the web browser
architecture were specified with a domain-specific language (DSL).
Take, for example, CSS.  Translate the English human-readable CSS
standards into a CSS DSL.  Then, write a compiler to compile the
constraints specified in the CSS DSL into C code that can be compiled
with 8c.  Then, when the standard is updated, when a special case needs
to be added, or when a bug is found, that info would be added to the CSS
specification written in the CSS DSL.  Recompile to C, compile to
binary, and you're up to date.  That way, the whole specification
doesn't need to be implemented directly in $language, and
updates/modifications don't require additional, tedious, coding.

This approach would require a DSL to be created for each of the
components of the architecture: HTML, CSS, script, DOM; and a compiler
would need to be written to convert each DSL into C.

Now, here's the question: Would an apprach using specifications in
domain-specific languages be easier or harder than porting an existing
engine to 9?

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|E-Mail: smiley@zenzebra.mv.com             PGP key ID: BC549F8B|
|Fingerprint: 9329 DB4A 30F5 6EDA D2BA  3489 DAB7 555A BC54 9F8B|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+