>Just a side remark. >I wonder whether the byte-code approach is the best possible solution >taking into account the overload of the decoder. Why not threaded code? >The FORTH (and similar) experience, PostScript implementations, etc. >show that this paradigm may be more interesting. Anyway, when you read >for the first time the Talmud, ehmmm....., I mean the description of >the STG machine by Simon PJ and others, you see that some of their >ideas are not very far from code threading. > >The classical FORTH style, with the separation between tha data and >return stacks seems quite appropriate for easy implementations of >higher-order control structures. If you saw the bells and whistles >inside a FORTH processor implemented on 8bit machines, you would >agree with me. > >But I do not exclude the possibility that all this has been already >discussed and rejected for some serious reasons... > > >Jerzy Karczmarczuk
Good remark, I just didn't think of the threaded approach. There is a reason Forth was popular on early desktop systems. I'd like to hear some arguments regarding the pros and cons of the threaded vs bytecode approaches! Bj�rn _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
