Wouldn't this whole thing be better written in Smalltalk than in gcc? gcc is more portable?
Couldn't Smalltalk output assembler that gcc could then compile? I saw an assembler written in Smalltalk once. Hope I still have it. It was very simple and clean looking. I am writting a compiler for a language called picoLARC and I am doing the language specification in Smalltalk which compiles it to trees of objects which are then run/evaluated by a recursive method. I'm getting the ideas straight in Smalltalk first. Then I suppose I would rewrite the picoLARC system in picoLARC on top of Smalltalk. It would be slow running but what do I care about that? The picoLARC compiler etc gets translated into executable trees which then translate themselves into assembler or machine language or IL or whatever. These executable objects aught to be able to generate linearized code like assembler or machine language. According to the book Scheme in Small Pieces. Perhaps the executable objects could generate a C# program that was nothing but op code generation statements and then picoLARC could run on and access .net for windowing and stuff. Or it could run in the browser like Vista Smalltalk( I think it's called Vista ). Wouldn't it be a lot easier to do fonc in Smalltalk? That way you could map out all the VTables and everything in a quick way that would be easy to follow. Then this Smalltalk thing could generate assembler or whatever which could be compiled into a something like running Smalltalk but when you open the browsers all the code is cola jolt fonc or whatever you call it. And that thing could then generate headless( no GUI ) executables if needed. Smalltalk is reflective. gcc is not. So what is the argument in favor of gcc? Why was it chosen? Is programming in gcc faster than programming in Smalltalk? Easier to understand? Better documented? Self documented? Easier to debug? If I could implement picoLARC on top of COLA or whatever it's called that would be cool. But the idea of trying to program in gcc always stops me dead. If cola or a version of cola was like Smalltalk but removing the problems that Smalltalk has then that would be good. If I could make the picoLARC compiler in Cola and build up a picoLARC that was like Smalltalk but was fast where it needed to be fast and could access .net or the various libraries in Linux that would be good. I would like to request a version of Cola that can be used to make a new language that is as fast as one made with gcc where it needs to be fast and can access all the libraries. And that Cola would have a Squeak like GUI that was detachable with all the browsers in it. And it could generate all kinds of different executables in easy ways. It could generate a VM like Squeak or a lib with no GUI. On 6/22/08, Ian Piumarta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 22, 2008, at 2:41 AM, John Leuner wrote: > >> What do you use a teletype for? > > Backing up my sources to punched tape. > > Cheers, > Ian > > PS: if you're taking me seriously in this tread, it's time to stop. > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
