🚀 go-pugleaf

Tim Smith (tzs@carson.u.washington.edu) wrote:
: davis@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu  (John E. Davis) writes:
: >The reason I chose a stack based language is easy:  The parsing stage is
: >simple.  I did not want most of the executable devoted to the language.
: 
: I've been planning on using a stack based language for my editor, too.
: This lets the basic editor (a C editing core, the interpreter, and a
: few important functions written in the stack language) be small and
: efficient.
: 
: Eventually, the plan is to also provide a C compiler that compiles
: from C to the editor language, so that pepole who want to write their
: editor programs in C can do so.  But this will be a separate program,
: so that people who simply want a small and efficient editor don't have
: to carry around the baggage of a C compiler or interpreter.

I've done this and it seems like a big win.  I didn't use C for the
language-to-write-editor-extensions and I don't think you want to - C
is too "low" level for writing extensions in (its great for writing the
editor itself).  Extension writers shouldn't have to worry about memory
allocation and all the other little details that C requires you to.
This doesn't have to take lots of memory - I have garbage collection,
recursion, lists, etc and the total editor size is < 150k (68k Unix).
The extensions run slower than native C code but that doesn't seem to be
much of a problem.

    Craig Durland       (503) 750-3354
    Hewlett-Packard, 1000 NE Circle, Corvallis, OR 97330
    craig@cv.hp.com