Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to")

[Charles Duffy]

On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 08:43, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
> On Monday, June 28, 2004 at 9:55:09 PM, 
>     Tom Lord <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> >   At one end of a spectrum, it would be easy to write primitive furth
> >   commands to read one line of input, create a string value from that,
> >   and push it on the tuple stack.   It would be easy to add commands
> >   to compare that string to a regular expression, perhaps edit it, 
> >   and so forth.    Combined with very simple flow of control and a
> >   use-by-convention of $env as a "hold register", Furth would become
> >   a virtual machine for the programming language of "/bin/sed".
> 
> Why exactly do you consider furth more suitable for such mini languages
> than the macro-system of scheme (or CL)?

Granted, I'm not Tom -- but my understanding is that the mini-languages
will be compiled via a subset of Pika (hence providing the
macro-language support and such) into Furth. Think of Furth as an
implementation detail that folks can expose (if they want to) to make
things (like alternate language bindings) easier.