ok.
By looking at the examples, I see that all the tools are launched
using a command line. Can I infer that so far, dynamic 'compiling' is
still not possible, though envisionned ?
Which leads to the question: is it one of the goals to make *OLA
embedable someday in a squeak-like environment (which btw would not
be the squeak we know, but something built with *OLA) ?
btw, I vote for ZOLA for two reasons:
1. http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/zola. "Zola is not available
in the list of acronyms." (whci hmeans it IS available)
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Zola: "...but I affirm,
with intense conviction, the Truth is on the march and nothing will
stop it." — Émile Zola
I still work hard to find out what the 'Z' would mean.
s.
Le 27 nov. 07 à 19:08, Ian Piumarta a écrit :
On Nov 23, 2007, at 12:22 AM, Stéphane Conversy wrote:
I still don't fully understand the goal of fonc/idst (or COLA ? or
LOLA ?)
Think of it as 'factory tooling'. If you have a lathe and a
milling machine you can build lathes and milling machines easily;
without them, building the same tools is much harder. *OLA is
(converging on ;-) the minimal programming language tooling needed
to make (very easily) new programming languages, with minimal
assumptions (static, dynamic, incremental, offline, etc...),
including itself (in its entirety). The properties that fall out
from this make it attractive for any programming task, not just
language implementation.
(Interesting thing about tooling: it often ends up begin more
valuable than the artefacts that it manufactured.)
Cheers,
Ian
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Stéphane Conversy
Enseignant Chercheur en IHM - ENAC
http://lii-enac.fr/~conversy
enac: +33 5 62 17 40 19
dgac r&d: +33 5 62 25 96 48
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
