[m-dev.] for review: bytecode interpreter
Ralph Becket
rbeck at microsoft.com
Mon Jan 29 22:32:42 AEDT 2001
>From Fergus Henderson on 29/01/2001 08:50:17
> On 08-Dec-2000, Ralph Becket <rbeck at microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Just out of interest, why is the bytecode interpreter written in C
> > rather than Mercury itself?
>
> Good question.
>
> There's several possible reasons:
> - efficiency?
If true, that's a hole that needs plugging, IMHO. Unless it's just a
case of not enough hands working on the compiler as opposed to a
fundamental language issue.
> - might make it easier to interoperate with (Mercury code that
> has been compiled to) native code?
I would have thought the problems were the pretty much the same for C
and Mercury - but I'm not an expert on linking. Doesn't the Mercury
dynamic linkage library provide a way out?
> - might make it easier to interoperate with the debugger?
Again, that sounds odd to me, but I'm not in a position to comment.
> I'm not sure if any of them are *good* reasons.
:)
I'm interested in this stuff because I have a strong feeling that
Mercury is efficient enough to tackle real systems level problems,
of which byte-code interpreters are one.
Ralph
--
Ralph Becket | MSR Cambridge | rbeck at microsoft.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to: mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Subscriptions: mercury-developers-request at cs.mu.oz.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the developers
mailing list