Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 17:58:41 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <20240329104716.777@kylheku.com>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <uu636l$7haj$1@dont-email.me>
 <20240329084454.0000090f@gmail.com> <uu6om5$cmv8$1@dont-email.me>
 <20240329101248.556@kylheku.com> <uu6t9h$dq4d$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 17:58:41 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72aa73b25261e98b4b2ab1e9e611ffcd";
	logging-data="469266"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188Ahr0aFBXZLRFmPTEdfB7B0gvdqRDWKI="
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:08jh5AcqgizQlEx4wvK06u7KlN4=
Bytes: 3293

On 2024-03-29, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 17:13:47 -0000 (UTC)
> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
>>On 2024-03-29, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:44:54 -0700
>>> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:55:33 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My rule of thimb is that a scripting language is one whereby the
>>>>> source code can be run immediately by the interpreter, eg perl,
>>>>> python, regardless of what happens internally. A full fledged
>>>>> programming language is one that requires a compile/debug/link step
>>>>> first with the compiler and runtime (if required) being seperate. eg
>>>>> Java, C
>>>>
>>>>By *that* logic, even Lisp and Forth don't count as "full-fledged
>>>>programming languages" o_O Johanne's definition of a "scripting
>>>
>>> As a counter point, good luck writing a device driver in lisp.
>>
>>The Lisp machines had operating systems and device drivers written in
>>Lisp, interrupt-driven and all.  Where do you perceive the difficulty?
>
> Were the mucky bits actually written in Lisp or was Lisp simply calling some
> routines written in assembler?

Sorry, could you demarcate where exactly the goalposts are? Which mucky
bits?

In kernels written in C, there are mucky bits in assembler, like
entry and exit into an trap/interrupt handler.  You usually can't save
the machine state in an interrupt handler without some instruction that
is of no use in general code generation, not to mention detailed access
to all the working registers that are not normally manipulated from the
HLL.

Yes, the mucky bits of communicating with the device, like passing
frames to and from an ethernet card, would be written in Lisp.

Assembly routines in Lisps, though not Lisp, can at least be written
in Lisp notation and assembled within Lisp.

In machine-compiled Lisps, there is the possibility of inline code,
like in C or other languages.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca