2009/11/14 Jesse Robinson <[email protected]>: > During the course of my hobby OS research I was excited to stumble upon BitC. > I wanted to write my own kernel, from scratch, just for the fun of it, but I > didn't want to use C. What was the point? It had all been done before: see > Unix, Linux, Mach, etc. C++ was out; too complicated, messy, ugly, just blah. > I looked at D (and I'm still looking) but it seems to be heading down the > wrong path, even though one of it's core principles is being a practical > language. It now has heaps and heaps of keywords, three competing compilers, > and two competing standard libraries. Around the same time I bought myself a > book about programming in Haskell and absolutely feel in love with the type > system and the clean syntax. Wouldn't it be awesome, I thought, if there was > a language that had something like Haskell's type system and type classes, > the clutter free syntax of python, and the low-level power of C. Then I > stumbled upon BitC. > > It looked like the language I was looking for. Thinks started to look up. But > then I read about Jonathan Shapiro's departure to Microsoft and the the > halting of the development of BitC. I'm not a language guru by any means (not > the best programmer in town either) so I don't think I could contribute much > to the project in any meaningful way. Having said that all that, I'd hate to > see BitC die an early death. So my question is: > > Is BitC pretty much dead?
I would say it was never really lively to start with. As far as I know it was written for a single project (Coyotos) and never used for anything else. Unless somebody picks it up and uses it elsewhere it will likely die a quiet lonely death as many obscure pieces of fine software did. Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
