[<<][staapl][>>][..]
Mon Mar 30 15:10:03 CEST 2009

Staapl vs. MetaOcaml

Staapl is simpler due to absence of binding problems in the generated
language and due to absence of static type guarantees. But, can some
of the static typing used in MetaOcaml be used to make some operations
in Staapl better defined?

Maybe it's time to start splitting the project in two?  One part moves
along with Forth, Stacks and macros and evolves towards some kind of
type system or better characterization of the compile time
compilations, while the other uses MetaOcaml to target nested C
expressions so lambda calculus can be used and low-level machine
mapping is left to the C compiler.

I'm really not so interested in register allocation and
machine-specific data and control flow hacks.  Ok for simple
processors and Forth, but for RISC it's already been solved many
times.

So where do I move from here?  Probably typed scheme.

The MetaOcaml part will be split off as http://zwizwa.be/darcs/ip



[Reply][About]
[<<][staapl][>>][..]