On Sun, 2004-05-23 at 00:19, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:


> Unfortunately in my case it has two problems:
> 
> 1. My compiler doesn't produce as optimized code as it could. It's not
>    that bad, but dynamic typing make generating good code very hard.

> It would be interesting to try to make some universal C binding for my
> language (after macros). I'm leaving considering it for the future.

What I think you will have to do is what I'm doing now
with Felix. YOu actually commit to writing the bindings
in your language. You make sure you can make them work.

Then, you examine what would make it possible
for the compiler to generate better code and extend
your language to handle it.

For example, Felix has a specialised 
'domain specific sublanguage' which deals with C bindings.
There is a whole class of statements which do nothing
else than organise C interfacing.

In your case, you might consiser a DSSL which has
some static typing, just to deal with FFIs ..
but which is higher level than C, and interfaces
with the rest of your language.

I think you can do this by saying 'we have many objects
at the moment, all the same static type -- my language
isn't typeless, just monotyped'.

Ok, so add a type system with two types: native and foreign.
You can't lose any dynamics here, since they're embodied
in the native part already. Just a thought. I worked
on statically typing Python .. and it turned out to be
almost impossible but *only* because of a few nasty
language features 99% of all Python programs could do without
(unrestricted 'eval' and mutable modules being two such evils).

-- 
John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net
voice: 061-2-9660-0850, 
snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net



-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners