3 ms·
I said "implemented" in C. I'd argue that the runtime == the implementation.
by Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
I said "implemented" in C. I'd argue that the runtime == the implementation.
- phoe-krk 8y agoThis doesn't really sound sane to me. In this particular case, it would mean that if you throw away SBCL's compiler, SBCL's standard library, SBCL's extensions, and replace them with something completely different, you still get the same Lisp implementation because all of the aforementioned elements aren't a part of what you call the implementation.
- aidenn0 8y agoThe runtime for sbcl is just the garbage collector and parts of the OS interface. It's not like the JVM (or e.g. GNU clisp) where the runtime is interpreting code. The OS interface for any program that is targeted at *nix is likely to be written at least partly in C, because POSIX is very hostile to non-C languages, which leaves us with the garbage collector. If the GC's implementation language is the most important thing for an implementation then every language implemented mostly in C++, but using bdwgc for garbage collection is actually implemented in C and assembly.
- pjmlp 8y agoFunny you say that, because Windows libc is actually implemented in C++ with extern "C" {} for the ISO C entry points.