From owner-freebsd-current Wed Nov 4 02:20:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA29692 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 02:20:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from alcanet.com.au (border.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA29615 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 02:19:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <40336>; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:19:07 +1100 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:19:33 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: lisp vs. Forth To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: <98Nov4.211907est.40336@border.alcanet.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mike Smith wrote: [siod is] >About 75k according to: I feel that's excessive for an embedded language in a bootloader. Even if it won't fit into the bootblocks, it still needs to fit onto a floppy with a kernel (unless we want to have separate boot and root floppies as some other Unices do). >What's the feeling on the lisp vs. Forth argument? I prefer lisp for non-trivial work, but can get by in forth. You can write illegible code in any language, so I don't think that argument holds much weight. A forth kernel is much smaller than lisp because there's no need for garbage collection or tagged pointers. (The downside is that forth doesn't have garbage collection or runtime typing :-). Peter -- Peter Jeremy (VK2PJ) peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au Alcatel Australia Limited 41 Mandible St Phone: +61 2 9690 5019 ALEXANDRIA NSW 2015 Fax: +61 2 9690 5247 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message