Kurt Stephens wrote:
`C and tcc: a language and compiler for dynamic code generation
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=316686.316697coll=Portaldl=ACMCFID=3175483CFTOKEN=37590449
tcc: a system for fast, flexible, and high-level dynamic code generation
Michael FIG wrote:
Hi,
Colin Putney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 16-Sep-08, at 6:16 AM, Aaron Gray wrote:
But it's not that at all. I'm implementing runtime dynamic typing
for
a statically typed system i.e. verification, not optimization.
'for' or 'on top of ' or 'underneath' ?
The
Aaron Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have any of you boys looked at the type systems involved to do this
sort of thing ?
Would you be so kind as to cite a few references so that I can
understand more about these issues? I have some ideas in mind, but it
would be very useful to compare and
Hi,
Colin Putney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 16-Sep-08, at 6:16 AM, Aaron Gray wrote:
But it's not that at all. I'm implementing runtime dynamic typing
for
a statically typed system i.e. verification, not optimization.
'for' or 'on top of ' or 'underneath' ?
The normal C static typing
I'm interested to see if you can achieve the mixture of dynamism and
C compatibilty within the same source language.
Yes, that's a key goal I'm trying to accomplish. I guess time will
tell.
Implementing compile time static typing for a runtime typed system is not
that easy.
So
In my Church/State implementation I have implemented a low-level (C
like) language and a seperate high-level language (in COLA style).
Sounds interesting. I'll have to look at what you have again (I
believe yours was the Common Lisp bootstrap implementation?) and get
some more ideas.
To be specific, here are the three switches that affect the ABI:
* per-object metadata (enables GC, introspection, safety, etc.)
* multimethods (requires metadata)
* concurrency (requires metadata; enables async messaging, STM)
I view these features as rather fundamental and easy to
Hi,
John Leuner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my Church/State implementation I have implemented a low-level (C
like) language and a seperate high-level language (in COLA style).
Sounds interesting. I'll have to look at what you have again (I
believe yours was the Common Lisp bootstrap
Hi,
I'm interested to see if you can achieve the mixture of dynamism and
C compatibilty within the same source language.
Yes, that's a key goal I'm trying to accomplish. I guess time will
tell.
Hi,
Have any of you boys looked at the type systems involved to do this sort of
thing ?
You talk about oop pointers and runtime metadata, is this just used for
safety and GC, or do you plan to implement OOP features like dynamic
dispatch?
That was an item that was missing from my original laundry list:
* Prototype multiple dispatch
Supports late-bound ad hoc
Hi Michael
As you may already know, I've been working on a project I've called
Ocean. The summary is that I want to create a source-level
replacement for GNU C that provides language safety, introspection,
user-extensible syntax/semantics, and sane concurrency support. I
will be using the
Hi,
[Kjell, I'll respond to your comment later... I still need to think on
it for a while.]
John Leuner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You talk about oop pointers and runtime metadata, is this just used for
safety and GC, or do you plan to implement OOP features like dynamic
dispatch?
That was
This Ocean project looks very interesting to me.
I have not had time to look at your laundry list yet but I hope to.
I am making picoLARC on sourceforge.net and it is meant to have many
different languages inside of it as dialects of a kind of Lisp.
picoLARC has Lispy OOP macros which can be used
13 matches
Mail list logo
