<html>
<head>
<style>
P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:40:44 +0300<br>> From: danielv@tx.technion.ac.il<br>> To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org<br>> Subject: Re: Fishing for a CS Masters Thesis Topic<br>> <br>> Under languages:<br><br>Also under languages:<br><br>What I would personally like to see worked on is having a better language to fill the systems programming roll. Right now everything converges on C/C++. There are higher level languages that are used to systems programming (e.g. Slang), but as far as I know they *all* convert to C. The GCC project has the ability to take an AST directly to convert to machine code, but this is also constrained by what C is capable of.<br><br>What I would like to see is some other language used for this "portable assembler", but without the assumptions and limitations of C [1]. Instead of deciding that added complexity is the solution (e.g. C++) I would like to see a language that looked to simplicity. Personally, I was thinking of a Lisp language for this roll because Lisp is the only language I am aware of (a useful one anyway) that is actually *simpler* then Smalltalk. I think powerful Lisp macros would also make it possible to build abstractions on top of the very low level primitives so that you don't have to do thinks like do a function call setup unless you didn't like any of the available options.<br><br>[1] Some of the limitations I was thinking of are things like the stack-based method of doing function calls and the inability to catch overflow, but I'm sure there are even more.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Jason<br><br /><hr />Live Earth is coming. Learn more about the hottest summer event - only on MSN. <a href='http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthwlm' target='_new'>Check it out!</a></body>
</html>