Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:25:24 -0500 (CDT) From: FreeBSD Fanatic <freebsd@KIWI-Computer.com> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: ACPI CHANGES AFFECTING MOST -CURRENT USERS Message-ID: <200109071525.f87FPOb77859@KIWI-Computer.com> In-Reply-To: <200109062235.f86MZWo03577@mass.dis.org> "from Mike Smith at Sep 6, 2001 03:35:32 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Is that statically-linked? I'm curious to know the size of the bootloader > > forth footprint. The loader is about 150k, so I'm sure you could probably > > fit a nice Scheme interpreter in under that size... ?? > > ie. almost all of the size is the dictionary/runtime library. I'll bet it's comparable to a tiny, stripped-down implementation of Scheme.. Only one way to find out... ;) > It's quite hard to beat this, and to be frank, Scheme's syntax is not much > better than Forth's. 8) That's debatable. At least it's consistant & makes sense. Syntax is only an argument of preference. I like Scheme better than LISP because there's less syntax to learn. But the original concern was not of syntax but of the number of committers who know the language. I'll bet there are quite a few who know/love Scheme. I think that if a choice is made, to move to Scheme over LISP because in theory it should have a smaller footprint. Not that it makes a significant difference so long as the loader fits nicely on /boot and out of the way of the loaded kernel (which loads at over 1 MB). --Rick C. Petty, aka Snoopy rick@kiwi-computer.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200109071525.f87FPOb77859>