Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

[REBOL] rebol weak points (i think) Re:(7)

From: civicminded4:ya:hoo at: 10-Sep-2000 20:48

--0-1714636915-968644136=:11554 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Whatever happened to the SHERMAN compiler, that I see, but cannot get, when I do a search of the web for REBOL? [carl--rebol--com] wrote: So, why don't you guys just use the 'compile function? fast-sort: compile function [data [block!] return: [block!]] [a [integer!]] [...] print type? :fast-sort native! Turns out, you *can* write a compiler for REBOL. However, to do so you need to make "promises" about a function. You, the programmer, certify that the contents of the function is indeed compilable (by not using very late bound tricks). The benefit of the above is that you can use the rest of the REBOL environment for meta stuff... like preprocessing what you will compile. -Carl At 9/10/00 05:57 PM -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Chris > >I agree. I don't see where Andrew's question presents any real problem. I >suspect the primary problems with developing a compiler for REBOL are 1) The >language design (or at least implementation) are not yet complete and 2) The >semantics are somewhat irregular, so that there would be an awful lot of >special cases to deal with. Scheme is another language which, in fact, is >rather similar to REBOL in many ways (in REBOL 1.x, it was very similar, >including continuations) and Scheme comes with a compiler as well as an >interpreter (see the DrScheme package from Rice University >http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/PLT/packages/drscheme/. It is free and rather >small (just a few MB) and supports threads, GUI programming, and tcp. > >-Larry > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 4:20 PM >Subject: [REBOL] rebol weak points (i think) Re:(4) > >> >> >Try compiling this: >> > >> > do ask "Please enter some Rebol code: " >> >> FORTH and Lisp systems don't seem to have a problem with this. Most Common >Lisp >> systems I know are compiled and have interactive input. See Corman Lisp >for an >> example (http://www.corman.net). Generally the compiler is part of the run >time >> and compiles the entered code on the fly. >> >> Chris. >> -- >> http://www.double.co.nz/cl >> http://www.double.co.nz/dylan >> >>
--0-1714636915-968644136=:11554 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <P> <BR>Whatever happened to the SHERMAN compiler, that&nbsp;I see, but cannot get, when I do a search of the web for REBOL? <P>&nbsp; <B><I>[carl--rebol--com]</I></B> wrote: <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">So, why don't you guys just use the 'compile function?<BR><BR>fast-sort: compile function [data [block!] return: [block!]] [a [integer!]] [...]<BR>print type? :fast-sort<BR>native!<BR><BR><GRIN><BR><BR>Turns out, you *can* write a compiler for REBOL. However, to do so you need to make "promises" about a function. You, the programmer, certify that the contents of the function is indeed compilable (by not using very late bound tricks).<BR><BR>The benefit of the above is that you can use the rest of the REBOL environment for meta stuff... like preprocessing what you will compile.<BR><BR>-Carl<BR><BR><BR>At 9/10/00 05:57 PM -0700, you wrote:<BR>>Hi Chris<BR>><BR>>I agree. I don't see where Andrew's question presents any real problem. I<BR>>suspect the primary problems with developing a compiler for REBOL are 1) The<BR>>language design (or at least implementation) are not yet co! mp! lete and 2) The<BR>>semantics are somewhat irregular, so that there would be an awful lot of<BR>>special cases to deal with. Scheme is another language which, in fact, is<BR>>rather similar to REBOL in many ways (in REBOL 1.x, it was very similar,<BR>>including continuations) and Scheme comes with a compiler as well as an<BR>>interpreter (see the DrScheme package from Rice University<BR>>http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/PLT/packages/drscheme/. It is free and rather<BR>>small (just a few MB) and supports threads, GUI programming, and tcp.<BR>><BR>>-Larry<BR>><BR>>----- Original Message -----<BR>>From: <[CHRIS--DOUBLE--TAB--CO--NZ]><BR>>To: <[LIST--REBOL--COM]><BR>>Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 4:20 PM<BR>>Subject: [REBOL] rebol weak points (i think) Re:(4)<BR>><BR>><BR>>><BR>>> >Try compiling this:<BR>>> ><BR>>> > do ask "Please enter some Rebol code: "<BR>>><BR>>> FORTH and Lisp systems don't s! ee! m to have a problem with this. Most Common<BR>>Lisp<BR>>> systems I know are compiled and have interactive input. See Corman Lisp<BR>>for an<BR>>> example (http://www.corman.net). Generally the compiler is part of the run<BR>>time<BR>>> and compiles the entered code on the fly.<BR>>><BR>>> Chris.<BR>>> --<BR>>> http://www.double.co.nz/cl<BR>>> http://www.double.co.nz/dylan<BR>>><BR>>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> --0-1714636915-968644136=:11554--