On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:19 AM, David Van Horn <dvanh...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > On 4/4/13 11:15 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >> On an unrelated note, you may wish to experiment with lambdaLVar >> as a #lang so that you can write programs. Since you seem to be >> designing a PL, I consider the practical evaluation as at least >> as important as a reduction semantics. Just a thought. [My gain for >> Racket would be that someone who does parallel 'stuff' uses our >> parallel features.] > > > By the way, as a first step, it's very easy to construct #lang languages out > of redex models. > > There are some details in this thread: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2012-October/054468.html
That is *very* cool. I had been wondering if programs written in languages-implemented-in-Redex could be decoupled from Redex like that. Thanks for pointing it out. > Of course, you'll probably want to eventually implement this language in > something more efficient than Redex, but at least this gets you to the point > of writing and running programs in your language. Lest I give the impression that the only way to write programs with LVars is to write programs in lambdaLVar, I should point out that we now have a prototype Haskell implementation of an LVar library [0], and some preliminary benchmarking results can be found in our new paper draft [1]. We want to eventually have LVar libraries for various languages, on top of which people can implement LVar-based data structures. lambdaLVar is a minimal substrate for LVars, but it's not too pleasant to write programs in (although the #lang decoupling could help). Lindsey [0] https://github.com/iu-parfunc/lvars/tree/master/haskell-prototype [1] https://www.cs.indiana.edu/~lkuper/papers/2013-lvars-draft.pdf ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
