Re: Anybody has experience with SLIM BINARIES?

Our moderator wrote:
>
> 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]
>


What does UNCOL have to do with slim binaries? As I understand them,
slim binaries are not really an intermediate form at all, they are
simply a compressed representation of the source program. Writing a
loader for slim binaries would be essentially the same as writing an
Oberon compiler (with some differences in parsing).
[If you look at the slim binaries paper, he contrasts his approach with
Mac fat binaries. You're right, they're basically tree compressed source.
-John]




--

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