Re: [DotGNU]Internet C++

[Marco Manfredini]

Jose Gonzalez wrote:
> Hello everybody.
>
> I'm new in this forum so i'm sorry if what I say has already been
> mencioned before or it's not right at this moment
>
> (anyway, I haven't seen anything about this in the FAQs)
>
> If my ideas are OK, Melody is a intermediate step to accommodate several
> high level languages, with
>
> different features (pointers, multiple inheritance,...) over a bytecode
> choosen from several posibilities (JVM, M$ CLR ,..)
>
>
>
> My question is: it's not posible to solve this problem using the an
> appropiate bytecode? I mean something like Internet C++
>

Regarding Internet C++. I quote Rhys Weatherley's comment from the 
dotGNU-arch list here:

 "This project cropped up on Slashdot last October.
 It isn't really "open source", so much as "available source".
 The core VM engine was over 200,000 lines of
 autogenerated C code, generated from some template
 that wasn't supplied.

 The Slashdot article is 
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/10/19/2229259.shtml

 My message pulling it apart is there: search for
 "rhysweatherley".  In a nutshell: wrong design,
 and totally insecure.  If this was used for DotGNU,
 it would need to be completely rewritten.  It looks
 like the code hasn't been updated since October,
 so the maintainer has dropped off the map."

A quick and clean kill.

Melody is (would be), to have a high-level representation of code, which 
  removes the need for the compiler implementor to put implementation 
details into the generated code. For example, a C++ compiler must 
somehow stem destructor cleanup into the byte-code and he would, say, 
generate tables with cleanup handlers, which an exeception handler would 
need to interpret. In other words: we had to define /the one ABI/ for 
that, which every language must to follow. But the JavaVM and the M$-ABI 
already have their own ways to deal with exceptions - And this would 
mean, that our compiler would need to know, for which target they 
produce, in order to know which ABI they had to serve.

Melody then, would offer the source language a way to say: "I introduce 
a variable here, and it is valid during this expression and after that 
expression is done (not matter if it succeeded), I want that this 
cleanup expression is done".  And now it's a matter of the Melody=>M$-IL 
or Melody=>JavaVM or Melody=>GCC translator to figure out how that 
constraints can be mapped on the ABI of the target architecture.

In short: Melody would be like a firewall between the source language 
and the target platform. And hopefully efficient if interpreted as 
target machine itself.

Greetings, Marco

P.S.

I am not sure if that's official. But I doubt that everyone one this 
list endorses HTML posts. multipart/html triples the traffic without 
adding one bit of information. Also you can expect, that not everyone 
has a mail client that can display HTML, and if he could, I would bet 
that the feature has been turned off.