andrel wrote:
> A small misunderstanding, I guess. What I proposed was to have a well 
> defined low level language (think RISC) and on top of that a very user 
> friendly one that directly communicates to the backbone.

Perhaps something like a well-defined byte-code interpreter is what you
mean? With calls that allow access to all of the ABI?

I'd already raised the issue that I felt that a byte-coded (or JIT'd) back-
end to any SDL was necessary for speed. If this was exposed and formally
documented then, firstly, more or less any language could be used with it
(assuming someone wants to write the translator), and secondly, portability
is at least vaguely possible by providing a reverse-compiler that outputs
some form of 'standard' SDL (whatever we end up calling 'standard' is up to
question of course).

This wouldn't be ideal for portability as you'd lose comments and the code
may be unreadable (especially if the front-end optimized it), but it's
possible it's better than nothing.

Note I am not necessarily advocating doing this: I am merely pointing out
that it is possible.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message