oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) (08/26/90)
George, thnx for your response to my questions. They were not meant as "flaming attacks" at all, but if they were received as such, my apologies. Your freely published SIOD *is* appreciated, and has made scheme converts out of people who would not otherwise be interested. Now, for specifics: In article <9008231801.AA27169@schizo> you (gjc@mitech.com) wrote: [marked with "|"] | ...followed up | by telling us how great his new "PSI" thing is going to be. Somebody asked, and I gave what I thought to be a reasonable summary of its characteristics. I did not attach any value judgement nor comparisons to that summary. Since it is not made public as yet, further discussion is not fruitful. | But there may be some learning going on here... I would not be in this profession if I didn't learn something every day. | ... once the PSI implementation is done ... PSI provably existed for at least nine months now. It is my second working scheme interpreter (first being an explicit control interpreter straigth out of SICP), and my third attempt. | By using IMPLICIT control in the Scheme interpreter one | allows the C compiler writer to decide *for-us* (implicitely) how procedure | calls are going to be made. But if we use EXPLICIT control then *we-decide* | and therefore we get no benefit from a lot of what the Hardware/Compiler | people who work for the company who sold us the computer have done for us. I take this to be the crux of your argument, and I believe it is a reasonable answer to my questions. Thanks. oz --- First learn your horn and all the theory. Internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca Next develop a style. Then forget all that uucp: utzoo/utai!yunexus!oz and just play. Charlie Parker [?] York U. CCS: (416) 736 5257