|extensible compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-03-18)|
|Re: extensible compilers email@example.com (ICHISUGI Yuuji) (1998-03-20)|
|Re: extensible compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-03-20)|
|Re: extensible compilers email@example.com (Bruce Stephens) (1998-03-22)|
|extensible compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-03-22)|
|Re: extensible compilers email@example.com (N. D. Culver) (1998-03-24)|
|Re: extensible compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (N. D. Culver) (1998-04-03)|
|From:||Bruce Stephens <email@example.com>|
|Date:||22 Mar 1998 20:23:56 -0500|
> [Extensible languages were fashionable in the mid 1970s. It's not
> that hard to do, but people found that the ability to write each
> program in a slightly different, incompatible, language wasn't all that
> useful. -John]
Rscheme, <URL:http://www.rscheme.org>, seems to be inspired by this
kind of thing.
The argument is that slightly different languages might be better than
entirely different languages, so long as the differences are well
structured. (In rscheme's case, by cleanly designed compiler hooks,
as far as I can see.) It's very schemey at present, but I understand
the intention is to use the same ideas on less lispy languages.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.