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

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.)

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... :)


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list