On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 04:01:53PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Are you thinking of something along the lines of FORTH or PostScript? Or
> something else?
Something else. Forth and PostScript are languages which are implemented
through stacks; I'm talking about a language designed for manipulating stacks.
Slight difference.
> >Should I draft some kind of spec for this or am I, as usual, talking out
> >of my backside?
> Depends, I suppose. Are you thinking of using it to implement perl 6? If
> so, the three big questions would be:
>
> 1) How fast is the C (or whatever) code it emits likely to be?
It's amazing how often this question has cropped up on the list when nobody at
all has a single benchmark, or indeed, a single line of code for anything
whatsoever. I'm not sure whether this makes me worried or angry, or indeed
both.
"The best strategy is to use the simplest, cleanest algorithms and data
structures appropriate for the task. Then measure performance to see if
changes are needed."
> 2) Would having to learn a completely new language be more of a hassle than
> it's worth?
It'll only be as complex as the freaky stack manipulation we do in PP code
anyway.
> 3) Would it easily tie into the existing C stdlib?
Planning to do so, yep. I'll go away and come up with some samples.
Simon
--
So what if I have a fertile brain? Fertilizer happens.
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
