Re: Anybody has experience with SLIM BINARIES?

Robert M. Muench wrote:
>> Anybody has experience with SLIM BINARIES?


Mauk van der Laan <maatwerk@euronet.nl> wrote:
>I am working on a compiler that produces bytecode - not meant for an
>interpreter but for machine language generation. It will be
>multi-platform, fast-loading and fast-running. Unfortunately, there is
>no documentation available, but I welcome any discussions.


Interesting. I'm working on something similar, although it's in an
early beta stage. I wonder, will your format be public so 3rd parties
can implement backends for various platforms?


Does your bytecode imply a virtual machine, or do you 'keep' the
expressions like Slim Binaries?


While on Slim Binaries: I agree that it's a great concept, but
unfortunately progress seem to have stagnated a bit. At least I've
seen little traffic around SlimBins on the net for half a year or so.
I wonder how much effort it would take to create a (f.e.) BeOS
backend, and if this is legally possible.




Paul
[I would carefully investigage the many failed UNCOL projects over the
past 40 years to be sure you understand why creating and using a
common intermediate code is much harder than it looks. Slim binaries
are a fine idea for Macs where you have different instruction sets
with identical operating systems and data formats. As soon as you
have more moving parts, the idea starts to collapse. -John]


--

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