Extension Languages

marks@iris.mincom.oz.au (Mark Stavar)
Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:30:30 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Extension Languages marks@iris.mincom.oz.au (1992-12-14)
Re: Extension Languages xjam@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (1992-12-14)
Re: Extension Languages davis@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (1992-12-14)
Re: Extension Languages daveg@thymus.synaptics.com (Dave Gillespie) (1992-12-15)
question on control dependence mcconnel@newta1.cs.uiuc.edu (1992-12-14)
Re: question on control dependence cliffc@rice.edu (1992-12-15)
Re: question on control dependence preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (1992-12-15)
[10 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: marks@iris.mincom.oz.au (Mark Stavar)
Organization: Mincom, Brisbane, Australia
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:30:30 GMT
Keywords: question, design, comment

[ Article crossposted from comp.editors ]

I have a question relating to extension languages for editors:

IS there any specific reason why one would choose to utilise an prefix
notation language for extensions to an editor as opposed to infix or

Emacs utilised its own implementation of lisp, while in the PC world,
Brief ( which has a distinctly Emacs feel about it ) uses a native macro
language which is also implemented al la prefix notation.

Does prefix notation provide some facilities for better performance for
interpretive languages. I am particularly interested since, as both Emacs
lisp and the Brief macro language were specifically written for their
respective products, I would have thought that the options would have been
available to utilise a more *natural* language interface. ( My definition
of *natural* here being similar to other procedural languages that most of
us write all day. e.g. C, Pascal, Fortran. I think you can get my drift. )

This post is not implying that anything should change in the cases sited
above. Rather, I am seeking more information as to why the particular
choices were made, what the advantages are that they provide, etc.

Thank you for any light you can shed

Mark Stavar
Juliette St
Brisbane Q Aust

Email: marks@jove.mincom.oz.au
[People implement what they like, and what's a natural programming style
is 100% a matter of opinion depending on one's personal experience. GNU
Emacs uses Lisp because Stallman likes Lisp. Epsilon uses C. Micro-emacs
uses Trac. It's all compiled into internal bytecodes; there's not a lot
of performance difference due to the language style. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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