BEAM documentation (was Re: Packages in Erlang...)
Chris Pressey
cpressey@REDACTED
Thu Sep 11 20:06:29 CEST 2003
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:14:19 -0500
"James Hague" <james@REDACTED> wrote:
> Luke Gorrie wrote:
> >
> > Have you considered using existing mid-level languages instead? If
> > so, are there any that seem particularly qualified/disqualified?
>
> I'm partial to both Forth and Lisp, but newer, optimizing Forth
> systems tend to be a bit eclectic, and I haven't found a good,
> machine code generating Lisp system that's cross-platform. The
> Windows port of CMUCL is apparently stalled. I suspect the easiest
> option, or the one I'd have the most fun writing, would be a homebrew
> Forth.
>
> An interesting option is C-- (see cminusminus.org).
While we're on the general subject (of having the most fun writing
[virtual] machine translators) I have to say that I found OpenZz to be
an inordinate amount of fun (but that's probably just me.)
http://openzz.sourceforge.net/
It's a fairly minimal dynamic parser. So not only is it extremely easy
to rapidly prototype a compiler or interpreter with it, it also allows
you to experiment with self-modifying grammars... :)
-Chris
More information about the erlang-questions
mailing list