3 ms·

Assembly is the right one. You have direct access to the machine ISA, including the weirder status/control registers and whatever trap/syscall corresponds to. A

Assembly is the right one. You have direct access to the machine ISA, including the weirder status/control registers and whatever trap/syscall corresponds to. Assemblers are somewhat powerful - can define data layouts somewhat like structs, abstract some things behind macros, add pseudo-instructions to put friendlier names on some things. Maybe the ISA expects you to build constant integers out of arithmetic, the assembler can give you a 'const' instruction which expands to said arithmetic. I have a pet theory that lisp macros over an assembler is the right high level language for systems programming but that hasn't made it off the whiteboard yet.

trealira 3y ago
The problem is that assembly is CPU dependent. The benefit of a high-level language is that it's CPU architecture independent. For smaller CPUs that can't support all of C's assumptions natively anyway, like the 6502, which can't multiply or do floating point arithmetic, something like what you describe would likely be best. It reminds me of the COMFY 6502 compiler: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/270941.270947 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/270941.270947
- JonChesterfield 3y ago
  Therein lies the interesting design space, yeah. Control flow, data layout, semantics of basic blocks are sometimes target agnostic and sometimes not. Sometimes a div instruction needs to turn into a runtime call, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you want explicit control of registers, sometimes any gpr is fine. Which I suppose yields the other language choice. Instead of C or assembly, write in something very like a compiler IR. Ymmv persuading non-compiler devs to code in SSA form directly.
wnoise 3y ago
But even the exposed machine ISA for x86 is way different these days than the underlying hardware.
zero_shift 3y ago
> I have a pet theory that lisp macros over an assembler is the right high level language for systems programming but that hasn't made it off the whiteboard yet. I'm having a little trouble visualising this. Don't many assemblers provide macro-instructions already?
- JonChesterfield 3y ago
  Assemblers come with text substitution macros. Lisp comes with program rewriting macros. Same basic idea that it's all expanded away by runtime, but using something like scheme as the compile time metaprogram that emits the machine specific assembly. There are a few s-expression based assemblers out there so probably nothing novel.
  - alexisread 3y ago
    Well Forth is possibly the most minimal VM over a platform, as evidenced by openfirmware. It does have problems scaling though, in that if you've seen one Forth, you've seen one Forth ie. The variations required to fit a platform make them semi-incompatible. Also, only global scope, no types and no built-in threadsafe constructs are limiting. That's not to say that a more lispy Forth wouldn't be useful though, in that a concatenative syntax allows us to pass custom datastructures around like APL, and CPS (delimited continuations with lexically scoped dynamic binding would come from the lisp side (see https://github.com/manuel/wat-js https://github.com/manuel/wat-js). Memory management in Forth can handle multiple memory types eg. https://flashforth.com/ https://flashforth.com/ so adding something like ref counting (https://github.com/zigalenarcic/minilisp/blob/main/main.c https://github.com/zigalenarcic/minilisp/blob/main/main.c) to handle the dynamic list side of things might mesh well. In any case, if you're looking for a self hosting lisp that runs on bare metal, https://github.com/attila-lendvai/maru https://github.com/attila-lendvai/maru has been out for a few years.

trealira 3y ago

The problem is that assembly is CPU dependent. The benefit of a high-level language is that it's CPU architecture independent. For smaller CPUs that can't support all of C's assumptions natively anyway, like the 6502, which can't multiply or do floating point arithmetic, something like what you describe would likely be best. It reminds me of the COMFY 6502 compiler: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/270941.270947 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/270941.270947

JonChesterfield 3y ago
Therein lies the interesting design space, yeah. Control flow, data layout, semantics of basic blocks are sometimes target agnostic and sometimes not. Sometimes a div instruction needs to turn into a runtime call, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you want explicit control of registers, sometimes any gpr is fine. Which I suppose yields the other language choice. Instead of C or assembly, write in something very like a compiler IR. Ymmv persuading non-compiler devs to code in SSA form directly.

wnoise 3y ago

But even the exposed machine ISA for x86 is way different these days than the underlying hardware.

zero_shift 3y ago

> I have a pet theory that lisp macros over an assembler is the right high level language for systems programming but that hasn't made it off the whiteboard yet. I'm having a little trouble visualising this. Don't many assemblers provide macro-instructions already?

JonChesterfield 3y ago
Assemblers come with text substitution macros. Lisp comes with program rewriting macros. Same basic idea that it's all expanded away by runtime, but using something like scheme as the compile time metaprogram that emits the machine specific assembly. There are a few s-expression based assemblers out there so probably nothing novel.
- alexisread 3y ago
  Well Forth is possibly the most minimal VM over a platform, as evidenced by openfirmware. It does have problems scaling though, in that if you've seen one Forth, you've seen one Forth ie. The variations required to fit a platform make them semi-incompatible. Also, only global scope, no types and no built-in threadsafe constructs are limiting. That's not to say that a more lispy Forth wouldn't be useful though, in that a concatenative syntax allows us to pass custom datastructures around like APL, and CPS (delimited continuations with lexically scoped dynamic binding would come from the lisp side (see https://github.com/manuel/wat-js https://github.com/manuel/wat-js). Memory management in Forth can handle multiple memory types eg. https://flashforth.com/ https://flashforth.com/ so adding something like ref counting (https://github.com/zigalenarcic/minilisp/blob/main/main.c https://github.com/zigalenarcic/minilisp/blob/main/main.c) to handle the dynamic list side of things might mesh well. In any case, if you're looking for a self hosting lisp that runs on bare metal, https://github.com/attila-lendvai/maru https://github.com/attila-lendvai/maru has been out for a few years.