On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:09:38 +0100 Anselm R Garbe <garb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 June 2010 06:09, Robert Ransom <rransom.8...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Scheme *should* be used for almost everything -- bootloaders, OS > > kernels, hardware drivers, tiny user utilities (like (Plan 9) ls and > > mc; Unix ls no longer qualifies as a tiny utility, and should not be > > written at all), long-running servers, etc. -- everything but x86 boot > > sectors should be written in Scheme. > > I think some dudes attempted this using Dylan > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_(programming_language) a while ago > in the BogkOS efforts, but it failed miserably, it was even worse than > GNU turd. Dylan is not Scheme -- they stuck an awful Algol-like syntax on it, even if there is still some Lispiness at lower levels (I don't know whether it's still a Lisp in its innards, and I don't care enough about Dylan to go to any trouble to find out). They probably didn't have a ‘sufficiently smart compiler’ for Dylan, either. (To use the infamous phrase from the Common Lisp spec -- back then, no one knew how to write such a compiler. Now, many pieces of the problem have been ‘solved’; writing a good enough compiler for most purposes is now a Simple Matter Of Programming.) Robert Ransom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
