|
|
|
|
|
by 110101001010100
5319 days ago
|
|
It's just a thought. A "what if". I trace the existence of many languages to having no common instruction set in hardware. Different assembly languages for different hardware. This was very frustrating for people many years ago. If protocols (rules) are awesome what if we had had a protocol that asked the chip makers to use a common (extendable) instruction set for all hardware? What if there had only been one assembly language? It seems that all abstractions, from Pascal or Lisp virtual machines to C to higher and higher level languages to the ones popular today, are all descended from the search for a way to deal with that initial lack of protocol (rule) to get hardware makers to use the same instruction set and thereby let programmers use the same assembly language. I could be very wrong on this. |
|
Maybe I am misunderstanding this.
But Lisp and C derives from very different views of the underlying machine. It is rather hard to unify a lisp machine (or other lambda calculus machine) instruction set with the instruction set assumed by a language like C. Even assuming extensibility of the instruction set, constructing a machine that can execute both the "usual" instruction set and lambda calculus efficiently is very very hard.
So this may not really be practical.