Chris, On Jan 22, 2008 12:48 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I learn Scheme I can't help thinking that it is more "fundamental" > than other languages....that Scheme is what other languages would > look like if we stripped out all the fluff and syntactic sugar. > > This idea would be verified if someone could tell me that many other > people > have *implemented* other languages in Scheme/Lisp. > > Yet, I'm afraid that most (all?) languages are implemented in C or > assembly. > Hence, C/assembly/register based machines will always be seen as the most > "fundamental" or lower level. > > I don't know much about the "Lisp machines" of way back. I assume they > were > just trying to optimize a typical register based CPU for Lisp. See? so > even > *Lisp machines* are implemented on top of register based > machines/assembly. > > What would really interest me is if someone invented a CPU whose hardware > wasn't based on registers and C compilers but somehow built from the > ground up > to be a Lisp/functional processor. > > Chris > > This has been tried, creating a Lisp machine: http://pt.withy.org/publications/LispM.html Maybe we can tackle this after we're done with SICP? :) -- Mark Schoonover, CMDBA http://www.linkedin.com/in/markschoonover http://marksitblog.blogspot.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
