Re: bytecode unification for scripting (and other!) languages

[Michael Vanier <mvanier@bbb.caltech.edu>]

> X-Authentication-Warning: fast.cs.utah.edu: majordom set sender to owner-plt-scheme@flux.cs.utah.edu using -f


> I just don't see "scripting" (which I think is a bogus notion anyway)
> as a driving domain.  You're much more likely to get far by picking
> something interesting and creating a VM for it.  Use a *use*, rather
> than some (particularly in this case, ill-defined) *technology*, as
> the driving force.

Shriram,

Just out of curiosity, why do you think scripting is a bogus notion?  My
entire interest in PLT scheme is as a scripting language for C/C++
libraries.  It seems to me that there are a lot of programs that benefit
from the two language approach (a statically-compiled language which
compiles to fast machine code, and a more dynamic language which is
interpreted or bytecode compiled on the fly).  The line between the
language levels is sometimes blurry, and may be nonexistent for some
languages (common lisp and ocaml come to mind) but the concept has still
been useful in e.g. emacs, gimp, AOLserver, matlab etc.

Mike