Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:19:33 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lisp vs. Forth Message-ID: <98Nov4.211907est.40336@border.alcanet.com.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?98Nov4.211907est.40336>