LOGO-L> Re: Logo with parallel processes vs. ToonTalk

[bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)]

"Ken Kahn" <KenKahn@ToonTalk.com> writes:
> But the fact that stacks
>are not used is why process spawning, suspension, and termination are very
>cheap operations in ToonTalk.

I still don't get it, I'm afraid; why is a frame on the stack more
expensive than a frame on the heap?  Is this some PC-specific thing
I don't know about?

>I would rather say I provide a programming technique or pattern of ToonTalk
>usage that corresponds exactly to function calling. And I admit it is a bit
>more complicated when all you want to do is function calling. But I claim
>you want something more general than function calling. Suppose you want to
>return 2 items?

Interesting -- we are having just that argument right now over on
comp.lang.scheme; the implementor types have put in multiple return
values for efficiency reasons, and the lambda fans hate it.

But I don't want to make you do everything functionally.  What I want
is a language that doesn't impose one paradigm on me, but allows me
to choose what's best for the problem at hand.  So, it's not that I
want you to leave anything out; I want you to make function composition
easier, also!


---------------------------------------------------------------
Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.