On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > A long time ago, `OutputForm' tend to be called `Expression', e.g. > > equivalent to SExpression, until the difference was fully realized. If you > > browse the Spad compiler source code, you should still find vestiges > > of that. > > > > I must confess I don't know to what extent your plan diverges from or > > converge to my plan -- a year ago -- to have a virtual machine for > > Spad (my slides are still on the web). But, it is interesting that I > > saw all those problems you're discussing and concluded that it was > > time to abandon Lisp as the virtual machine one compiles Spad to. > > > > I must admit that I do not understand what you really mean. Do > you mean that at conceptual level we should use different abstract > machine? Or maybe you mean literally re-targeting Spad compiler?
I think I'm essentially suggesting to make the Spad compiler re-targetable at the conceptual level, and dropping the Lisp target in the long run. That implies a VM that has its own semantics (preferably very simple, easy to map to hardware to sustain interoperability with C, C++, Java, C#, or what have you codes). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
