Twobit or not Twobit

[Mark S. Miller]

At 02:22 PM 8/30/00 , Ben Laurie wrote:
>... Amen! Would it be heresy to suggest that C++ may be a more
>appropriate target?

If so, can I be both heretic and high priest of the E religion? ;)

http://www.erights.org/enative/index.html is such a proposal.  For many 
reasons, I am going to continue investing my efforts primarily in E-on-Java. 
But I posted these pages because I'd love to see E-on-C++.  The posted 
pages show a mapping that is small, beautiful, and reasonably efficient.  
Together with the existing Kernel-E documentation, this is also enough 
information for someone to pick up the ball and run with it.  I now await 
volunteers.

Following a suggestion by Tyler, if we define Core-E as 

1) Kernel-E, 
2) the user-syntax to Kernel-E expansion, and 
3) a core set of libraries (yet to be separately defined) adequate for 
     running headless confined smart contracts, 

then, for reasonable engineering effort, Core-E-on-Java and Core-E-on-C++ 
can be compatible.  The largest piece of engineering would be porting 
Pluribus (the org.erights.e.net.* packages).  These should be ported to E 
rather than C++ so that one source can be maintained for both platforms. 

Since E as a whole hijacks the Java libraries, a compatible complete 
E-on-Java is only feasible when combined with a Java native interface, so 
that the generated C++ code may still make use of these extensive Java 
libraries. Note that I don't care if Python or Squeak libraries are be 
better.  They aren't the same.


         Cheers,
         --MarkM