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

[Tobias C. Rittweiler]

On Thursday, July 1, 2004 at 3:44:57 PM, 
    Charles Duffy <address@hidden> wrote:

> 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:
> >
> > > 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.

I actually grokked that one aspect of furth is to serve as a UFLL
(Universal Foreign Language Layer), well kind of. But I read his mail so
that he talked about writing a /bin/sed in furth and not making /bin/sed
using furth.

I think I simply misread; rereading just the part I quoted from him,
reveals that he actually wants furth to "become a _virtual_machine_ for
[...] /bin/sed".


Tom, this aspect certainly looks *interesting* and useful, but I yet
have to mediate about the *practical* usefulness, because I can imagine
a loss when it comes down to actual /integration/ (note: this is clearly
not the same as combination). Did you already collect insights wrt this?


-- tcr (address@hidden)  ``Ho chresim'eidos uch ho poll'eidos sophos''