Re: Coding Standards
"Alejandro F. Reimondo" <aleReimondo-46xxqwzpFVOuG6gxw/[email protected]> Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:22:58 -0300
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.fonc,gmane.comp.programming.objects.spanish |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <8402E04EA5B140EFBCE11540E60A48B6@Self> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0879969105== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005A_01C9062F.94E3DAC0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C9062F.94E3DAC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Josh said, >This first one is a normal bootstrap, the exciting one will > be when Pepsi and Jolt are unified into Coke. This is > "Phase 4" in section 6.1 of "ALBERT". Yes, it will be an "exciting instant"... Is it really the "exciting instant" what we are looking for? Reading the emails from Kjell to this email, I think we have not invested too much words trying to collaborate with his view. We are arriving to technicals details without talking about other ways of working... I said, other ways of working... (not other tools to work with). As I understood from the talk of Ian in Postdam, he is focused in writing (yes! writing the words of) the basic laws of a system that express itself when booting (a minuscule instant in the development of a system). I was interested in the goal as an anegdotic point in time, but wanted to explore if his system can be valuable for my objetives. When I saw that his system is written using the tools of the =B470s (words in a language) and he is simply writing text in C and macros with smalltalk syntax, I reflected on this and desided that his work is not valuable for my objetives because he is not using Smalltalk (he is writing, with smalltalk syntax, a system that can boot itself). His work and this list help me to understand that this is not aligned with my objetives (related with sustainable systems but not with bootable systems/languages). Kjell was susprised because the language to build bootable systems here is written with a C base, and asked if it is not convenient to doit from the Smalltalk side. I think that Ian do the best he can and use his tools (C based) to let him write the fundamental laws of booting systems. For other people it will be better to write code in Lisp or use an evolvable system of objects (e.g. one with the "syntax" defined by Alan Kay loooong time ago -not the first but, the last language for someone like me- ). The main difference is related with objetives and what we are really looking for. For someone interested in write the "correct sentence" of a booting system, he/she can use any language, and the instant of success will be granted by his work on words (and language formulation). No debugger is needed for write a fundamental law (the best way to constrain owr own future is to write/invent it). If a debugger is needed, then he/she must define the BUG class first. :-) For other people that are not happy to start from the genesis (again) and recognize that some time has gone, it is not enough an instant of excitement. What is the value of a bigbang of a system with no parent? -no family, no history- This point of view about sustainable systems has not been walked too much (at least as I know). Smalltalk systems has been sustainable from aprox. 30years ago and we, the persons, the "working hands" -not the "defining minds"- has been part of the system from the very first instance, upto the multitude of alternatives present today. For people that understand "sustainability" as the ability to continue evolving, other tools are available and better than languages. The language is not as important as the actions made on the system itself. One point of view is as valid as the other, but the activities and methods used under one path are not the same of the other (as the tools). When I understood that Ian's objetives are not my objetives and his tools are not valid to my needs, I look for other people trying to do something similar to my objetives and I has found the moebius project ( http://code.google.com/p/moebius-st/ = ) they are working on Squeak Smalltalk and with the objetive to produce a Smalltalk... What? Yes! If we recognize that anything can change in a Smalltalk (also its syntax :-P ) any change we can apply to Smalltalk will make it another Smalltalk.... (the family concept constrain what is possible now) Sustainability of smalltalk is granted that way. In a language if you change a rule, you have another language; and you are under the rule of closed systems. In an open system one must work to complement the limits imposed by The Method and doing that way grants excitings instants many times in one day (instants of excitement in the privacy of the system survival when changed). We can try to define a language for all persons and a law for all systems; or... we can try to work to modify a systems that has booted +30years ago. The tools for each work can=B4t be the same, because the objetives and the methods are not the same. On closed systems (and writing any correct sentence) today it is important that at least one level the idea(ls) must be written in object oriented terms. It is accepted any language to specify the low level and an object design to map the basic rules. On open systems, are outside Object Oriented limits and it is not enough to write a design with objects. The problem of sustainability in open systems (natural and human controlled systems) requires the use of open instances (like smalltalk). The use of Smalltalk is convenient, but it is not related with Smalltalk syntax, and it is not related with Smalltalk "environment" (the contents). The use Smalltalk is convenient becasue it is a support to understand how to act using perception (sensing what we have done) and not using definition (saying what is there). Close vs. Open are not contraty but complementary. People working on close systems do not need to face uncertainty and need rules (good abstractions). People working on open systems need instants of excitement continuously to avoid the frustration when facing the limits of object orientation. Hope this loooong email can help to do not try to find a language/law/tool for all of us, and let us share good talk understanding that we can complement each other and it is not important to reach a conclusion at low cost or fast, it has been +30years from the first sustainable system in computer media. cheers, Ale. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Joshua Gargus=20 To: Fundamentals of New Computing=20 Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [fonc] Coding Standards Michael FIG wrote:=20 "Kjell Godo" <[email protected]> writes: So what you're saying is that the idc which is written in C compiles C like code into machine code? =20 idc is written in Pepsi. You may be confused because the bootstrap .o.c files are included in the SVN checkout, at least until idc targets Coke instead of C. And then that machine code compiles Smalltalk like idst/Pepsi into machine code? =20 No, GCC compiles the C code (until bootstrap). The idst/Pepsi compiles itself into machine code. And this bootstrapping happens over and over again and not just once or twice in a year. =20 "The bootstrapping" is when Pepsi and Jolt are unified into Coke, and that need only happen once. Right, but there was also an initial stage in the bootstrapping where = a Pepsi compiler was written in C (C++?)... this is "Phase 1" in section = 6.1 of "Accessible Language-Based Environments of Recursive Theories" = ("ALBERT"). This one has apparently already been discarded; now we just = start from the (Pepsi-compiler-generated) files in boot/.=20 This first one is a normal bootstrap, the exciting one will be when = Pepsi and Jolt are unified into Coke. This is "Phase 4" in section 6.1 = of "ALBERT". Cheers, Josh -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C9062F.94E3DAC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type = content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DISO-8859-1> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Josh said,</FONT></DIV> <DIV>>This first one is a normal bootstrap, the exciting one = will</DIV> <DIV>> be when Pepsi and Jolt are unified into Coke. This = is</DIV> <DIV>> "Phase 4" in section 6.1 of "ALBERT".</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Yes, it will be an "exciting=20 instant"...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Is it really the "exciting instant" = what we are=20 looking for?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Reading the emails from Kjell to = this email, I=20 think we have</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> not invested too much words = trying to=20 collaborate with</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> his view.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>We are arriving to technicals details = without=20 talking about</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> other ways of = working...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I said, other ways of working... (not = other tools=20 to work with).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As I understood from the talk of Ian in = Postdam, he=20 is focused</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> in writing (yes! writing the = words of) the=20 basic laws of a system</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> that express itself when booting = (a minuscule=20 instant in the</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> development</FONT><FONT = face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> of a system).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I was interested in the goal as an = anegdotic=20 point in time, but</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> wanted to explore if his system = can be=20 valuable for my objetives.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>When I saw that his system is = written using=20 the tools of the =B470s</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> (words = in a language)</FONT><FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2> and he is simply writing text in C = and</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> macros</FONT><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> with</FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> smalltalk=20 syntax,</FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I reflected on this and=20 desided</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> that his work is not = valuable</FONT><FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2> for my objetives because he is</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> not using Smalltalk (he is=20 writing,</FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> with smalltalk = syntax,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> a system that can boot = itself).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>His work and this list help me to = understand that=20 this is not</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> aligned with my objetives = (related with=20 sustainable systems</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> but not with bootable=20 systems/languages).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial = size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Kjell was susprised because the = language to build=20 bootable</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> systems</FONT><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> here is written with a C base, and asked if it = is</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> not convenient</FONT><FONT = face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> to doit from the Smalltalk side.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I think that Ian do the best he can and = use his=20 tools (C based)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> to let him write the fundamental = laws of=20 booting systems.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For other people it will be better to = write code in=20 Lisp or use</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> an evolvable system of objects = (e.g.=20 one with the "</FONT><FONT face=3DArial = size=3D2>syntax"</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> defined by Alan Kay loooong time = ago -not the=20 first but,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> the last language</FONT><FONT = face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> for someone like me- ).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The main difference is related with = objetives and=20 what we</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> are really looking = for.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For someone interested in write the = "correct=20 sentence"</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> of a booting system, he/she can = use any=20 language,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> and the instant of success will = be granted by=20 his</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> work on words (and language=20 formulation).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>No debugger is needed for write a = fundamental=20 law</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> (the best way to = constrain owr=20 own future is to write/invent it).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If a debugger is needed, then he/she = must=20 define</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> the BUG class first. = :-)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For other people that are not happy to = start from=20 the genesis (again)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> and recognize that some time has = gone, it is=20 not enough</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> an instant of excitement. What is = the value=20 of a bigbang of a</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> system with no parent? -no = family, no=20 history-</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This point of view about sustainable = systems has=20 not been</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> walked too much (at least as I=20 know).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Smalltalk systems has been sustainable = from=20 aprox.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> 30years ago and we, the persons, = the "working=20 hands"</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> -not the "defining minds"- has = been part of=20 the system</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> from the very first instance, = upto the=20 multitude of alternatives</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> present today.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For people that understand = "sustainability" as the=20 ability to</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> continue evolving, other tools = are available=20 and better</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> than languages.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The language is not as important as the = actions=20 made on</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> the system itself.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>One point of view is as valid as the = other, but the=20 activities</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> and methods used under one path = are not the=20 same of the</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> other</FONT><FONT face=3DArial = size=3D2> (as=20 the tools).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>When I understood that Ian's objetives = are not my=20 objetives</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> and his tools are not valid to my = needs, I=20 look for other</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> people trying to do something = similar to my=20 objetives and</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I has found </FONT><FONT = face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>the moebius project</FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> ( = </FONT><FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20 href=3D"http://code.google.com/p/moebius-st/">http://code.google.com/p/mo= ebius-st/</A> )</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> they are working on Squeak = Smalltalk and with=20 the objetive</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> to produce a = Smalltalk...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What? Yes! If we recognize that = anything can change=20 in</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> a Smalltalk (also its syntax :-P = ) any change=20 we can apply</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> to Smalltalk will make it another = Smalltalk.... (the family</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> concept constrain what is = possible=20 now)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sustainability of smalltalk is granted = that=20 way.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In a language if you change a rule, you = have=20 another</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> language; and you are under the = rule of=20 closed systems.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In an open system one must work to = complement=20 the</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> limits imposed</FONT><FONT = face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> by The Method and doing that way grants</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> excitings instants</FONT><FONT = face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> many times in one day (instants of</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> excitement in the = privacy</FONT><FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2> of the system survival</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> when changed).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>We can try to define a = language for all=20 persons and</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> a law for all systems; or... we = can try to=20 work to modify</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> a systems that has = booted +30years=20 ago.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The tools for each work can=B4t be the = same,=20 because</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> the objetives and the methods are = not the=20 same.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>On closed systems (and writing any = correct=20 sentence)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> today it is important that at = least=20 one level the idea(ls)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> must be written in object = oriented=20 terms.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It is accepted any language to specify = the low=20 level and</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> an object design to map the basic = rules.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>On open systems, are outside Object = Oriented=20 limits</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> and it is not enough to write a = design with=20 objects.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The problem of sustainability in open = systems=20 (natural</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> and human controlled systems) = requires the=20 use of</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> open instances (like = smalltalk).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The use of Smalltalk is convenient, but = it is not=20 related</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> with Smalltalk syntax, and it is = not related=20 with</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Smalltalk "environment" (the=20 contents).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The use Smalltalk is convenient becasue = it is a=20 support</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> to understand how to act using = perception=20 (sensing what</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> we have done) and not using = definition=20 (saying what is there).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Close vs. Open are not contraty but=20 complementary.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>People working on close systems do not = need to=20 face</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> uncertainty and need rules (good=20 abstractions).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>People working on open systems need = instants=20 of</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> excitement continuously to avoid = the=20 frustration when</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> facing the limits of object=20 orientation.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hope this loooong email can help to do = not try to=20 find</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> a language/law/tool for all of = us, and let us=20 share good talk</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> understanding that we can = complement each=20 other and</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> it is not important to reach a = conclusion at=20 low cost or fast,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> it has been +30years from the = first=20 sustainable system</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> in computer media.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>cheers,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ale.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: = black"><B>From:</B>=20 <A [email protected] href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Joshua = Gargus</A>=20 </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A [email protected]=20 href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Fundamentals of New Computing</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, August 24, 2008 = 5:02=20 PM</DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [fonc] Coding=20 Standards</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV>Michael FIG wrote:=20 <BLOCKQUOTE cite=3Dmid:[email protected] type=3D"cite"><PRE = wrap=3D"">"Kjell Godo" <A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]>"><[email protected]></A> = writes: </PRE> <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">So what you're saying is = that the idc which is written in C compiles C like code into machine code? </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!----> idc is written in Pepsi. You may be confused because the bootstrap .o.c files are included in the SVN checkout, at least until idc targets Coke instead of C. </PRE> <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">And then that machine code = compiles Smalltalk like idst/Pepsi into machine code? </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!----> No, GCC compiles the C code (until bootstrap). </PRE> <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">The idst/Pepsi compiles = itself into machine code. And this bootstrapping happens over and over again and not just once or twice in a year. </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!----> "The bootstrapping" is when Pepsi and Jolt are unified into Coke, and that need only happen once. </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>Right, but there was also an initial stage in the=20 bootstrapping where a Pepsi compiler was written in C (C++?)... this = is "Phase=20 1" in section 6.1 of "Accessible Language-Based Environments of = Recursive=20 Theories" ("ALBERT"). This one has apparently already been = discarded;=20 now we just start from the (Pepsi-compiler-generated) files in boot/.=20 <BR><BR>This first one is a normal bootstrap, the exciting one will be = when=20 Pepsi and Jolt are unified into Coke. This is "Phase 4" in = section 6.1=20 of "ALBERT".<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Josh<BR><BR><BR> <P> <HR> <P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>fonc mailing = = list<BR>[email protected]<BR>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc<BR></BLOCK= QUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C9062F.94E3DAC0-- --===============0879969105== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline