Thanks for all your answers.

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Tomas Hlavaty <t...@logand.com> wrote:
>> Now my question: how far could be pushed the idea to write a maximal
>> subset of Picolisp in a minimal subset of Picolisp?
> I have explored this in my Java implementation:
>   $ git clone http://logand.com/git/wl.git

Interesting. Both for the Java use (these seem to be good starting files for
a newbie like me, or maybe there are some others examples in the wild?),
and for the PicoLisp implemented in PicoLisp.

Could you please include a readme with some instructions about where
to begin?

>> 2) Since PicoLisp64 is written in a «generic assembly» embedded in
>> PicoLisp, I was wondering (only wondering, since the concepts are a
>> bit vague for me) if instead of building the .s files we could build
>> some http://asmjs.org/ file(s).
> Good idea.  Or maybe compiling to a VM written directly in JS would be
> better?

A new VM? the generic one (base source files of pico64) seemed to be a
good (existing) candidate. Now there must be a translation to js.

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Rick Lyman <lyman.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Christophe,
> How about porting the c version using:
> https://github.com/kripken/emscripten?

The first idea came because of the three letters A.S.M.
I realise that asmjs is far from having the semantics of assembly. I cannot even
find an assembly written using asmjs. This is quite misleading.

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Joe Bogner <joebog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was thinking the same thing. miniPicolisp might be a simpler first step to
> port

Right. But it's the Emscripten route, which was not the one I suggested, but
surely a valid one. Someone?

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Rick Lyman <lyman.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A downside to asm.js is that it is Firefox only...

I'm not looking for performance, just JS implementation.

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Rick Lyman <lyman.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://ricklyman.net:81/!wiki?emscripten

Thanks for the links.

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:59 PM,  <andr...@itship.ch> wrote:
> I'm highly interested in this.

Great news! Some here too!

> We must distinguish between:
> A) javascript implementation of picolisp, so picolisp runs on
> browser/node.js (this requires two different implementations I guess, even
> when they share a lot in common)

Could you elaborate on this? I don't feel the need for now, but my goal is
quite basic: embed a very simple language.

> B) javascript generating from picolisp, so we can program on HTML DOM in
> browser using picolisp, or interact with node.js libraries from picolisp
> running on / or calling node.js

«javascript generating from picolisp» do you mean «compiling PicoLisp code
to JS code»?

I don't think it's needed to act on the DOM or interact with node libs. A simple
interface could be written. Well maybe this interface is what you mean, but
in this case, just to be sure we are in phase, not ALL the PicoLisp code should
be compiled/translated.

> I guess for having B) really covering everything, it requires A) to be
> implemented.

Could you elaborate on this?

> So one way would be to write an pil interpreter on js, which might be
> reached in a various of ways as currently being discussed, and then
> writing some libraries to interact with the environment
> (browser,node.js).

Indeed. Did you try piljs? It's not in the master branch right know.
I'm waiting for the green flag of my boss (Jon?) ;)
There are some important features young enough to be in branches only.
And of course:

> Another way might be reimplementing pil on top of ClojureScript, not sure
> if that makes sense.
> Might be easier to implement it a lisp dialect instead of javascript.

If we want PicoLisp, I'm not sure the peculiarities of it can be easily achieved
in other Lisp dialects (thinking about dynamic binding for one).



http://profgra.org/lycee/ (site pro)
http://delicious.com/profgraorg (liens, favoris)
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Reply via email to