🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1281@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
HR>I have made one concrete suggestion for something which is not a language,but
HR>which would make for versatile relatively easy programming. It is a versatile
HR>macro processor; maybe one should call it a user-controlled semi-compiler. 
HR>...an example for the use of a single machine instruction on the CYBER 205...

In article <2253@pembina.UUCP> cdshaw@pembina.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes:
>I guess my point is that if you only want nifty expressions for the 205, you're
CS>simply asking for a spoonful of syntactic sugar, assuming that the #asm
CS>thing allows proper data structure access. If the compiler-asm link is
CS>inadequate, then this is probably a straightforward system fix. I'd wager that
CS>the grail -- portable and maximally efficient -- is impossible.

  I'm inclined to agree that portability and maximal "fit" to the machine are
probably incompatable, but I rather like the idea of using a general-purpose
macroprocessor to mock up a mini-language.

  Andy Tannenbaum (of Minix fame) used to suffer from similar financial
strictures, and used the same solution. He carefully misused a macroprocessor.
(The article, I believe, was in SP&E many moons ago).

--dave (1: this is getting awfully far from architecture
        2: I'd use lisp to write the translator, myself) c-b


-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | {toronto area...}lethe!dave
72 Abitibi Ave.,      |  Joyce C-B:
Willowdale, Ontario,  |     He's so smart he's dumb.
CANADA. 223-8968      |