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

[Colin Walters]

On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 20:50 -0700, Tom Lord wrote:

> I would think you'd like having an excuse to make progress on
> "librifying" arch even if the excuse only indirectly relates to 
> what you'd want to do with a libarch but....

Sure.

> In case you haven't noticed, the need for scripting in arch is very
> well established at this point and, indeed, multiple frameworks have
> emerged to answer that need.  The nails abound.

I completely agree the need is great for high-level scripting!  But I do
not think that need implies a need for a new VM embedded in tla, which
is what we were discussing.  The obvious answer to scripting is to have
language bindings simply built on top of a pure C library.  That way the
core is language-independent.  Good ideas from various language bindings
can make their way down into the shared C core.  There is no division;
we (all the people who work on tla) can all agree on the C language.
Future arch implementations don't have to duplicate a VM.

Incidentally I am quite sure we have had basically this exact same
discussion before, and you agreed it didn't make sense to embed pika
over simply librifying libarch and letting language bindings compete on
their own.

> So why furth and not, say, Python?  How much time have you got?

A more analogous situation would be to embed the Python bytecode
interpreter with tla.  It just doesn't make sense.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part