Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:52:37 +1000 From: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: "C. P. Ghost" <cpghost@cordula.ws> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Interpreted language(s) in the base Message-ID: <20100819235237.GA5859@johnny.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinHtzt=ELPvQBaaRBUzN-U88EXDMenZwrRsY3NL@mail.gmail.com> References: <4C6505A4.9060203@FreeBSD.org> <4C650B75.3020800@FreeBSD.org> <4C651192.9020403@FreeBSD.org> <i477eo$i4d$1@dough.gmane.org> <4C673898.2080609@FreeBSD.org> <AANLkTim_prShRiHkLnFbhek9%2Beaa-KaJ5oZtNo%2BLd0K1@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1008152240370.66595@qbhto.arg> <20100818134341.GA88861@johnny.reilly.home> <AANLkTinHtzt=ELPvQBaaRBUzN-U88EXDMenZwrRsY3NL@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I didn't want to prolong this now mostly off-topic discussion
too much, but:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 06:00:54PM +0200, C. P. Ghost wrote:
> +1 for a scheme shell, but not for the heavy-weight variety that
> compiles to C, as that would tie them to a subset of ${ARCH}es.
Why do you say that? Most of the C-generators that I know of
produce fairly standards-compliant C code that should just work
anywhere. Sure there are some (with sophisticated memory
managers, mostly) that get intimate with the platform, but
presumably we would have to stay away from those for this sort
of exercise...
Cheers,
--
Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100819235237.GA5859>