Re: about langage neutral

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:10:13AM +0100, Jos? Bollo wrote:
 > What I have in mind is that there is no need for a specific IDL: the
 > language itself is the IDL and the code generator.
 > 
 > I can add that SCHEME interpreters are small piece of code (that you
 > don't have to change, pick it and use it). Compilers also exist.

To some extent the whole point of an IDL is being declarative and not
Turing-complete, so you can read the declarations and readily
translate them to a wide variety of languages. Writing a script that
spits out interface definitions in C (we already have several of
these) doesn't help produce interface definitions for other languages.

Just writing the script in Scheme instead of sh/awk or Python or
whatnot doesn't help much. Plus, we don't have a Scheme interpreter in
base.

If what you mean instead is to invent a new IDL and use S-expressions
as the input syntax to avoid needing a real parser, you're pulling on
the wrong end of the problem. Parsers are cheap; the semantics of the
IDL are the important part.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost