Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| From: | "minf...@arcor.de" <minforth@arcor.de> |
| 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: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="12834"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_programming -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.