With a system like miniPicoLisp, like any ultra-light footprint interpreter - does a general purpose FFI really gel with the design?
IMO the way people normally use interpreters in this weight class (see also, Lua, Chibi, picoC, Jim, ...) is to embed them: i.e. the interpreter becomes a first-class part of the hosting C (or equivalent) program. In so doing it gains first-class access to all of the host's API on the runtime level, and instead of using a dynamic API load native functions at runtime, it has the ability to statically expose them as part of what effectively becomes a domain-specific extension of the interpreter that provides the useful parts of the program's internal C API as "builtins". This isn't necessarily a very picoLisp way to structure a program - I get the impression picoLisp is usually the "host" by design - but I wonder whether, if you avoid that and try to make miniPicoLisp the conceptually freestanding language, you'd end up erasing most of what makes it distinct from the main picoLisp anyway. AlexG On Sat, 16 May 2020, 16:43 C K Kashyap, <ckkash...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh btw Andras, > The main reason I would love those features in pil32 (C) is so that I can > more easily translate it to miniPicoLisp > I really want to be able to have a system that requires nothing more than > C :) > Regards, > Kashyap > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:53 PM C K Kashyap <ckkash...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Absolutely!!! >> If that is done - I believe there is no reason not to have pil64 in C too >> right :) >> Regards, >> Kashyap >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:55 PM Andras Pahi <pa...@t-online.hu> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> If you are still interested in native/lisp in picolisp32 then I am >>> working to support the pil64 >>> features in picolisp32. The development branch of >>> https://github.com/pahihu/picoLisp >>> just missing the coroutines (stay tuned), and builds on 64bit/32bit >>> targets. >>> It uses libffi for the native C calls. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andras >>> >>> On 2020. May 8., at 16:36, C K Kashyap <ckkash...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Alex, >>> I think I'll try and see if I can get a simple SDL callback to work with >>> miniPicoLisp - that way, I can really understand the issues better. >>> If I remember correctly - pil21 initially did not have the POSIX >>> requirement. Is there a way to get older versions of pil21 (I know that it >>> is a strange request for a POC :) ) >>> >>> Thanks Tomas for your ffi link. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Kashyap >>> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 2:24 AM Tomas Hlavaty <t...@logand.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Kashyap, >>>> >>>> C K Kashyap <ckkash...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> > I am now trying to figure out how to do FFI min miniPicoLisp and I >>>> > realized that only pil64 has native/lisp support. Is there any reason >>>> > it could not be done in the 'c' implementation of pil32? I just wanted >>>> > to make sure that there is no "impossibility" about attempting to port >>>> > the native/lisp functions to miniPicoLisp. >>>> >>>> here is an example of ffi with minipicolisp: >>>> https://logand.com/sw/mplisp/files.html >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Tomas >>>> >>>> -- >>>> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe >>>> >>> >>>
