namekuseijin <namekusei...@gmail.com> writes: > On 11 out, 08:49, Oleg Parashchenko <ole...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'd like to try the idea that Scheme can be considered as a new >> portable assembler. We could code something in Scheme and then compile >> it to PHP or Python or Java or whatever. >> >> Any suggestions and pointers to existing and related work are welcome. >> Thanks! >> >> My current approach is to take an existing Scheme implementation and >> hijack into its backend. At this moment Scheme code is converted to >> some representation with a minimal set of bytecodes, and it should be >> quite easy to compile this representation to a target language. After >> some research, the main candidates are Gambit, Chicken and CPSCM: >> >> http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i/http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-ii/ >> >> If there is an interest in this work, I could publish progress >> reports. >> >> -- >> Oleg Parashchenko o...@http://uucode.com/http://uucode.com/blog/ XML, TeX, >> Python, Mac, Chess > > it may be assembler, too bad scheme libs are scattered around written > in far too many different flavors of assembler... > > It warms my heart though to realize that Scheme's usual small size and > footprint has allowed for many quality implementations targetting many > different backends, be it x86 assembly, C, javascript or .NET. Take > python and you have a slow c bytecode interpreter and a slow > bytecode .NET compiler. Take haskell and its so friggin' huge and > complex that its got its very own scary monolithic gcc. When you > think of it, Scheme is the one true high-level language with many > quality perfomant backends -- CL has a few scary compilers for native > code, but not one to java,
Yep, it only has two for java. > .NET or javascript that I know of... -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
