Re: [DotGNU]Melody

[Mike Hoolehan]

On (07/08/01 09:47), Marco Manfredini wrote:
> So if we want to support compilation to JavaVM, we write a mapping 
> between Melody and Java. If somebody doesn't like the idea to interpret 
> bytecodes of wrong endianess on his PDA, he writes a trivial (but space 
> efficient) Melody to machine language converter.
> 
> This should also encourage the maintainers of languages outside of the 
> gcc collection to create a port to a Melody backend. And making a 
> Language=>Melody translator should be save a lot of work, because you 
> don't have to mud into the low-levelness to a bytecode machine 
> (stacklayout etc.) anymore.

If Melody can be described as a machine-independent intermediate language
that preserves semantic information about the original code, couldn't it
also just be described as another programming language?  

When it's said that all dotGNU supported languages must be translated into
Melody, which can then be translated into perhaps Java Bytecode or IL,
aren't we really saying that dotGNU only supports the Melody programming
language and that to use another langauge someone (GNU) will need to write a
translator from the source language to Melody?

Sorry to speak in questions, but I'm not sure of my understanding of Melody.

dotGNU could just as easily say that Java, for instance, is that
machine-independent language that preserves semantic info.  Saves the work of
inventing a new language.  I don't truly think this is a good idea, by the
way, just making a point.

A separate point: if Melody is used, perhaps an xml-based syntax would be
beneficial.

Mike