Re: Tunes Archaeology

On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Brian T. Rice wrote:

> Hello all,
> I was reviewing the early history of Tunes, and stumbled on these
> mailing-list posts with some useful terms that didn't make it into the web
> site:
> 
> http://lists.tunes.org/list/tunes/9410/msg00052.html
> 
> http://lists.tunes.org/list/tunes/9410/msg00052.html

Those are the same... I think you meant this one:

http://lists.tunes.org/list/tunes/9410/msg00053.html

> The context for these is very primitive, but the ideas are still useful.
> Considering the recent split of opinion and/or understanding of HLL/LLL
> issues, I thought it relevant to bring up. And it *does* seem forth was
> brought up originally as a candidate.

A fine choice. :)  Good for low-level work, and capable of high levels.  
We could add a Lisp extension and an infix parser... that should satisfy
our syntactic needs.  It's also simple to make a reflective token-threaded
forth; there's a performance penalty, but it has many uses.

I'm working on my Forth OS again.  It's written completely in Forth, so
it's compact and cohesive even in its current unrefined state.  I'm using
metaprogramming techniques that aren't possible in most languages.

When the current phase is done I'll release it.  At that point it'll be
able to compile itself.  Right now I just want a viable alternative to
bloatware; I have no immediate plans to do anything "Tunesy" like
persistence, garbage collection, or migration.  One thing at a time...
I'll leave that stuff to someone else :)

Tom Novelli