Re: Mindy future

• To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• Subject: Re: Mindy future
• From: Bruce Hoult <bruce@hoult.org>
• Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:00:03 -0500 (EST)
• Organization: ihug ( New Zealand )
• References: <B68F0BC2.3A7B%j.faichney@gu.edu.au>
• User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC)
• Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:13003

In article <B68F0BC2.3A7B%j.faichney@gu.edu.au>, Jolon Faichney 
<j.faichney@gu.edu.au> wrote:

> On the Gwydion Dylan web page it mentions that not much work will
> be done on Mindy in the future. I was just wondering why that was?

It would take a lot of work to add current Dylan features -- most 
notably macros -- to Mindy and it's thought that it would be easier to 
give d2c a quick&dirty mode that compiles nearly as fast as does Mindy 
while still producing better code.


> Also is there any reference for the bytecodes that Mindy uses? Is the
> bytecode format any good? Is it fairly high-level or low-level?

High level.  For example, I'm pretty sure that each operator (e.g. "+") 
is looked up from its symbolic name each time it is executed.

-- Bruce

• Re: Mindy future
• From: Rob <robm@h2g2.com>

• Mindy future
• From: Jolon Faichney <j.faichney@gu.edu.au>

• Prev: Re: Currying in Dylan?
• Next: Re: Mindy future
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread