|About task-specific programming languages firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul Robinson) (2007-05-31)|
|Re: About task-specific programming languages DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-05-31)|
|From:||Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>|
|Date:||Thu, 31 May 2007 23:55:12 +0200|
|Posted-Date:||31 May 2007 23:10:45 EDT|
Paul Robinson wrote:
> We also don't have any working microkernels available;
As John already pointed out, microkernels are working all around you,
e.g. in cell phones, cars, DVD players, data acquisition and other
Many programming systems (Forth, Java...) allow to produce turnkey
applications, running on a naked hardware, since decades.
> And so we've come full circle: at the application level, "micro
> languages" or task-specific languages and programming systems such as
> macro and scripting languages, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby/Ruby on Rails,
> Tcl, and SQL (and if I've left out your favorite, presume it's
> included), are just as important for some problem domains as
> "monolithic languages" (the third-generation languages) such as Basic,
> C/C++, Cobol, Fortran, Pascal, etc.
Other classifications separate general purpose (C...) from specialized
(SQL...) languages, or compiled (C...) from interpreted (SQL...) or
emulated (Java...) languages.
Your "microkernel" languages IMO fall in the category "highly platform
independent" languages, which only require the installation of the
according interpreter or emulator (VM) on a target system.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.