On 13 out, 19:41, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote: > namekuseijin <namekusei...@gmail.com> writes: > > On 11 out, 08:49, Oleg Parashchenko <ole...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, > > >> I'd like to try the idea that Scheme can be considered as a new > >> portable assembler. We could code something in Scheme and then compile > >> it to PHP or Python or Java or whatever. > > >> Any suggestions and pointers to existing and related work are welcome. > >> Thanks! > > >> My current approach is to take an existing Scheme implementation and > >> hijack into its backend. At this moment Scheme code is converted to > >> some representation with a minimal set of bytecodes, and it should be > >> quite easy to compile this representation to a target language. After > >> some research, the main candidates are Gambit, Chicken and CPSCM: > > >>http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i/... > > >> If there is an interest in this work, I could publish progress > >> reports. > > >> -- > >> Oleg Parashchenko o...@http://uucode.com/http://uucode.com/blog/ XML, > >> TeX, Python, Mac, Chess > > > it may be assembler, too bad scheme libs are scattered around written > > in far too many different flavors of assembler... > > > It warms my heart though to realize that Scheme's usual small size and > > footprint has allowed for many quality implementations targetting many > > different backends, be it x86 assembly, C, javascript or .NET. Take > > python and you have a slow c bytecode interpreter and a slow > > bytecode .NET compiler. Take haskell and its so friggin' huge and > > complex that its got its very own scary monolithic gcc. When you > > think of it, Scheme is the one true high-level language with many > > quality perfomant backends -- CL has a few scary compilers for native > > code, but not one to java, > > Yep, it only has two for java.
I hope those are not Clojure and Qi... :p -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
