> > Is that statically-linked? I'm curious to know the size of the bootloader
> > forth footprint. The loader is about 150k, so I'm sure you could probably
> > fit a nice Scheme interpreter in under that size... ??
> ie. almost all of the size is the dictionary/runtime library.
I'll bet it's comparable to a tiny, stripped-down implementation of
Scheme.. Only one way to find out... ;)
> It's quite hard to beat this, and to be frank, Scheme's syntax is not much
> better than Forth's. 8)
That's debatable. At least it's consistant & makes sense. Syntax is only
an argument of preference. I like Scheme better than LISP because there's
less syntax to learn. But the original concern was not of syntax but of
the number of committers who know the language. I'll bet there are quite a
few who know/love Scheme. I think that if a choice is made, to move to
Scheme over LISP because in theory it should have a smaller footprint. Not
that it makes a significant difference so long as the loader fits nicely on
/boot and out of the way of the loaded kernel (which loads at over 1 MB).
--Rick C. Petty, aka Snoopy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message