"Mike Hore" <mikehoreREM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:BD4A21EF.4CD6C%mikehoreREM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Alex McDonald wrote:
>
> >...
> > Which is where the problem starts. The kernel is heavily dependant on
the
> > Intel x86 architecture, which is not what a Mac uses; it's Motorola
68000
> > based.
>
> Hi Alex, just a tiny nitpick -- since 1992 or thereabouts, it's based
> on the PowerPC.
>
> But the point stands that this is still big-endian, and VERY different
> from the x86 (or should I say ia32?) line of processors.
>
Thank you for the correction; I should have known about PowerPC.
>
> >> Remember that the modern trend in programming is the MVC
> >> (model-view-controller) architecture, where roles are well
> >> defined and separated in different software entities.
> >>
> >> I post also this message to comp.lang.forth.mac
> >>
> >
> > I suspect this is a different Forth altogether, that would require to
be
> > built from the ground up. There's just too mich baggage in W32F (I
can't
> > speak for MOPS, but the same is possibly true).
>
> Possibly, though there's no technical reason that a new class
> structure couldn't be written to sit above the code generator.
>
> The problems aren't technical, they're just practical -- everyone's got
> day jobs, and not enough time to take on such a big effort. There
> would have to be an obvious big payoff to justify the time taken.
>
> Then even if there were volunteers, the whole thing would have to be
> specified, and I have a sneaking suspicion that to get consensus on
> a specification might be a bit challenging ;-)
Which is where MOPS and W32F diverged way back; Andrew McKewan's
implementation differs from MOPS, and imho it's too late to rewind the
clock.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
|
