Re: Thick bindings to a C library and gnattest: suggestions?

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Monday, July 1, 2013 10:24:57 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Jeffrey Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> wrote in message 
> 
> > (Aside: in a world in which GB of RAM are common, it seems odd for a 
> > language to require explicit heap allocation, and the associated memory 
> > management, for objects that fit in memory, but not in the stack. Surely 
> > it would be better for the language to allow the developer to simply 
> > declare the object, and for the compiler to decide where it will fit, and 
> > allocate it and manage its memory appropriately. A means to disable 
> > automatic heap allocation would be needed for systems that disallow heap 
> > allocation.)
> 
> 
> Amen! I've been saying that for 30+ years; perhaps someday it will really be 
> true in commonly used compilers.

True; that would be a nice feature..

I think though that maybe FORTH is close to that; AIUI it's odd combination of ultra low-level (words resolve to either more words or some chunk of machine-code) and ultra high-level (you can define words in such a way as to form grammars [i.e. you don't use raw FORTH, you use a DSL that happens to be written/implemented in FORTH]). [And, of course, it's a stack based language itself.]