[m-dev.] for review: bytecode interpreter

[Ralph Becket]

>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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------