Re: Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its implementation? RPN?

"" <>
Wed, 16 Nov 2022 04:54:53 -0800 (PST)

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "" <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 04:54:53 -0800 (PST)
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 22-09-026 22-10-025 <29190_1668508275_63736A72_29190_327_1_22-11-007@comp.compilers> 22-11-009 22-11-013 22-11-015
Injection-Info:; posting-host=""; logging-data="12834"; mail-complaints-to=""
Keywords: syntax, history, comment
Posted-Date: 16 Nov 2022 08:16:44 EST
In-Reply-To: 22-11-015

gah4 schrieb am Mittwoch, 16. November 2022 um 11:57:18 UTC+1:
> The Sun boot roms also use Forth, or something Forth-like as the
> built-in control language.
> [The FreeBSD boot also uses Forth for boot-time configuration. It's a nice
> little language but we're drifting away from compilers. -John]

You are right when it would only be about Forth, but we were musing about
simplified compilation without all the usual ballast.

So the capability in a (meta)language for compile-time execution comes into play.
Forth is only one example. TCL would be my next candidate. I don't know Seed7
but its author claims to be able to e.g. redefine and create new operators which
means new semantics.
[There was a vogue in the 1970s for extensible languages like EL1 at Harvard
and IMP72 at Yale. You could add new grammar rules on the fly. What that
meant was that no two programs were written in the same language and they were
unreadable and often undebuggable. OOP, which lets you add new types and
semantics without changing the syntax, turned out to be a lot more useful.
See -John]

Post a followup to this message

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