Xref: utzoo comp.arch:6457 comp.lang.misc:1953 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!purdue!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!pardo From: pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Machine-independent intermediate languages Keywords: virtual machine language design Message-ID: <5933@june.cs.washington.edu> Date: 4 Oct 88 17:06:18 GMT References: <853@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <905@sword.bellcore.com> Reply-To: pardo@uw-june.UUCP (David Keppel) Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle Lines: 24 yba@sabre.bellcore.com (Mark Levine) writes: >[ virtual machine ] I'd encourage everybody to go look at the Smalltalk Virtual Machine (STVM). Yes, even those of you who think that Smalltalk sucks dead goats. The reason is that there a lot of very clever things that have been done with Smalltalk and the STVM and I believe that they are all (well, nearly all :-) reasonable things to think about for language and virtual machine design. (Some of them reflect things that were perhaps not such good ideas and should be avoided, others are good things that should perhaps be duplicated.) Anything that calls itself Smalltalk must act like it runs on a STVM, even if the Smalltalk source is compiled to native code. What other machines use virtual machine specifications? I know Prolog has an abstract machine, but I don't think that it is in any way required for a Prolog implementation. ;-D on ( 25 cents is 2 bits, so flipping a quarter gives a quandary result ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo