Language vs. run-time Re: [...] creating a new language [...]

"Joćo Paredes" wrote:


> This language is (although based a little in C and Pascal) but
> has features that no language has, made specifically to create a
> 32-bit OS, the file formats are special in a way that only the
> routines being used is loaded (but it includes static linking
> too) the file can be breaked in peaces so it fits the blocks of
> free memmory, is beeing designed to be fast, combining the power
> of C(& CPP), the low lwevel of assembly and the easyness of use
> of Pascal (kinda C--)


Just wondering: should the above features be part of the
language description? It seems that some of them are more related to
the linker, the dynamic loader, or just the underlying OS. Maybe I am
missing the point...
Stepping back a little bit, the more general question is: What
should go into a language specification? Where should a language
description end, and where should a run-time environment description
start? They both affect compilers, which can be viewed as adapters
between the abstract world of the "pure" language and the low-level,
(virtual) machine world of the target environment.


TIA,


Mihai


--
  Mihai Christodorescu <mihai@cs.wisc.edu> // PGP key available

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.