A liitle note on the side felix (23 Jun 2004 23:44 UTC)
Re: A liitle note on the side Bradd W. Szonye (24 Jun 2004 00:14 UTC)
Re: A liitle note on the side Alex Shinn (24 Jun 2004 03:10 UTC)
Re: A liitle note on the side Bradd W. Szonye (24 Jun 2004 03:55 UTC)
Re: A liitle note on the side Jens Axel Søgaard (24 Jun 2004 05:04 UTC)
Re: A liitle note on the side Bradd W. Szonye (24 Jun 2004 05:07 UTC)
Re: A liitle note on the side Felix Winkelmann (24 Jun 2004 05:19 UTC)
Re: A liitle note on the side campbell@xxxxxx (24 Jun 2004 16:56 UTC)
Re: A liitle note on the side Bradd W. Szonye (24 Jun 2004 18:47 UTC)
Re: A liitle note on the side campbell@xxxxxx (24 Jun 2004 04:19 UTC)
Re: A liitle note on the side Alex Shinn (24 Jun 2004 05:07 UTC)
Re: A liitle note on the side campbell@xxxxxx (24 Jun 2004 01:40 UTC)

Re: A liitle note on the side Alex Shinn 24 Jun 2004 05:07 UTC

At Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:33:04 -0700 (PDT), xxxxxx@autodrip.bloodandcoffee.net wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Alex Shinn wrote:
>
> > I thought the "million line programs" discussion was useful.  Anything
> > that big clearly needs dynamic-require, a superset of require.  It
> > seems the Scheme48 module system is the one that needs to prove itself
> > here.
>
> Scheme48 has controlled & well-abstracted dynamic manipulation of the
> module system.  DYNAMIC-REQUIRE is rather uncontrolled, inhibits
> compilers in just the same way that LOAD does, and doesn't allow for
> the same kind of first-class module system manipulation that Scheme48
> does, so I think Scheme48 can be considered pretty well 'proven' in
> this regard.

Ah, foolish me, I though the lack of any response to my previous post
on the subject meant everyone agreed with me :)

The canonical example of the million-line program is an OS kernel.
How do you implement an OS without some form of dynamic-require?
Or any large application with plugins?

--
Alex