[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 19:50 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sounds like a fine idea.
Do you think the operating system that the M implementation is
running on should be taken into account? That might be a way
of forcing two different codebases for the stuff that isn't
in the M implementation, such as the TCP/IP stack...
David Whitten
What? Are you suggesting that a rewrite of core OS functionality be
rewriting into MUMPS?
Ruben
Sure,
we should write one version of the Operating System in Lisp, one in MUMPS,
one in FORTH or POPLOG, one in ASM or C, one in Prolog, one in Modula-3 or
Ada, one in Perl, one in ML, and one in APL.
Then we run them in parallel and at least five out of nine wins.
Heh.
You jest, but come to think of it, perl is exceedingly portable and it
could be put (as a tool, not OS) on every machine. Outsourcing stuff
to perl from M may actually be a good idea. Eg, Kevin Toppenberg's
recent M routines to shuffle ascii/binary data forwards and backwards
between machines sounds like just the job for the pack/unpack function
used with socket functions in standard (no libraries) perl.
PJ
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
