Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (VBDis)
22 Oct 2000 01:32:00 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
UNCOL = Uncool? (SRS) (2000-10-19)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (Daniel C. Wang) (2000-10-22)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (2000-10-22)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (Peter Gammie) (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (Daniel C. Wang) (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (Chris F Clark) (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (2000-10-26)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? (2000-10-26)
[5 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: (VBDis)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 22 Oct 2000 01:32:00 -0400
Organization: AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG
References: 00-10-139
Keywords: UNCOL

"SRS" <> schreibt:

>The Microsoft initiative on the IR domain (.NET) seems interesting,
>but I'm sure there will be absolutely no strategy to provide this
>technology on non-Windows platforms.

I only hear of assumptions, that something is limited to some
platform. I really would appreciate more concrete arguments, which
explain the immanent platform dependency of e.g. .NET.

>[Given the uniform failure of all previous UNCOL attempts, I'd be pretty
>sceptical. I agree it's possible if you limit the source languages and
>targets enough, but then it's usually not very interesting, either. -John]

Some source languages really cannot be mapped to other models, with
regards to code creation. I only know Forth and Lisp as concrete
languages, which are incompatible with e.g. C, and Smalltalk and other
languages also might be different from stack oriented languages by

But what do such differences mean to platform independent approaches?
IMO a stack-based programming model will cover the majority of
existing applications and languages. Perhaps a separation of
stack-oriented and "other" languages really is necessary, before each
naturally distinct model can be described in it's own platform
independent approach?


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.