[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Dylan rather than CL -- why?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Dylan rather than CL -- why?
- From: Stavros Macrakis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 17:59:52 -0500
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Rob Farrow's message of Fri, 4 Dec 92 16:40:13 CST <9212042240.AA06815@stephanie.hc.ti.com>
- Sender: email@example.com
>...if you want a standard development environment, you can
>certainly define one without building it into the language, just
>as you can define a standard linear-programming package or a
>standard graphic-interface package (although of course its
>implementation is much more closely linked to the language
>implementation than these examples).
I don't believe that development environment facilities are less
closely related to the language implementation than are
Please reread my message; we agree. I said that "its" (i.e. the
development environment's) implementation is more closely linked to
the language implementation than are "these" examples (LP and GUI).
The basic capabilities/hooks for keeping functions, evaluation
stacks, documentation, etc. have to be well considered by the
implementation. This kind of access is essential to modular design
of separable development environments.
In general, these hooks do not need to be part of the execution
environment, and require non-zero overhead.