Perhaps not simpler but my thinking is that it's probably easier to find resources on C plus getting to know C better might have higher utility than assembly.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Alabhya Singh <alab...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thanks Henrik. > > May be because pil32 and C are simpler than pil64 and assembly > respectively. > > ------------------------------ > * From: * Henrik Sarvell <hsarv...@gmail.com>; > * To: * <picolisp@software-lab.de>; > * Subject: * Re: Implementation Education > * Sent: * Thu, Aug 7, 2014 9:31:10 AM > > Hi Alabhya, if I were you I would learn enough C to understand the > pil32 source and then go through it. > > > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Alabhya Singh <alab...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> To be able to use a language with utmost confidence one should be able to >> understand its implementation so much so as to be able to implement it and >> maintain it. >> >> This I am saying from my experience in maintaining my Porteus Linux >> system. >> PicoLisp matches Porteus in many ways, minimalist, easy to maintain, >> speed etc. >> >> PicoLisp philosophy of minimal orthogonal design makes it ideal for this >> down to bare metal approach. >> >> However I am just a novice lisp programmer who would love to invest >> significant effort into learning through using picoLisp. >> >> I shall be grateful if Alexander and/or other senior experienced people >> be kind enough to outline various components of implementing picoLisp. >> >> Such as: knowledge level of lisp, assembly and C (reference books, links >> etc). >> >> Kindly indicate steps to start learning how to implement and maintain >> picoLisp. >> >> >> >
