← Back to context Comment by frankjr 1 year ago Thanks. I'm now reading this where people are trying to explain what happened in the ref/ directory.https://github.com/kparc/ksimple/blob/main/a.c 5 comments frankjr Reply dcuthbertson 1 year ago Thanks for that link. The comments there help a lot. If I understand them, this is a minimal implementation of K with a lot of limitations, such as:"the only supported atom/vector type is 8bit integer, so beware of overflows"Still, it's fascinating how an interpreter can be written with such a small amount of code. tromp 1 year ago An interpreter for BLC, including tokenizing, parsing, and evaluation, can be written in as few as 29 bytes of BLC (and 650 bytes of C). tasuki 1 year ago John, do tell more about BLC please! 2 replies →
dcuthbertson 1 year ago Thanks for that link. The comments there help a lot. If I understand them, this is a minimal implementation of K with a lot of limitations, such as:"the only supported atom/vector type is 8bit integer, so beware of overflows"Still, it's fascinating how an interpreter can be written with such a small amount of code. tromp 1 year ago An interpreter for BLC, including tokenizing, parsing, and evaluation, can be written in as few as 29 bytes of BLC (and 650 bytes of C). tasuki 1 year ago John, do tell more about BLC please! 2 replies →
tromp 1 year ago An interpreter for BLC, including tokenizing, parsing, and evaluation, can be written in as few as 29 bytes of BLC (and 650 bytes of C). tasuki 1 year ago John, do tell more about BLC please! 2 replies →
Thanks for that link. The comments there help a lot. If I understand them, this is a minimal implementation of K with a lot of limitations, such as:
"the only supported atom/vector type is 8bit integer, so beware of overflows"
Still, it's fascinating how an interpreter can be written with such a small amount of code.
An interpreter for BLC, including tokenizing, parsing, and evaluation, can be written in as few as 29 bytes of BLC (and 650 bytes of C).
John, do tell more about BLC please!
2 replies →