Tue Apr 23 13:57:01 2002
Emmanuel Rialland writes:
> I know that those questions could sound provocative and but here we=20=
> 1) why C++?=20
> why not lisp / scheme / OCaml or anything else (I remember=20
> that simh was mentionned).=20
> I readily admit my brains melt reading the current code.=20
> I don't understand a lot of it.=20
Yes, good question. I'd also prefer to do it in lisp. I think it would
be a lot easier that way; not the least because of the interactive
repl, which gives you a kind of FEP :-)
Actually, I' ve done a bit of exploratory programming for examining
the load-band and the microcode band in Common Lisp and it seems to go
a lot faster. Since, at least at the moment, a lot of time an energy
is still spent on figuring things out and not producing production
quality code, I can imagin doing a dual way exploration. Why not write
code in CL if it is easier and then later translating it into C++.
As far as I can tell, the reason for doing it in C++ is, that it is
presumably easier to get something running on the bare iron. Though I
would have done it in C then. Maybe OCaml would also be a good
compromise for that.
Wherever I lay my .emacs, there=B4s my $HOME.