2010/3/11 Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]>: >> >From the marketing point of view, CLI isn't really that good... > > You mean: it's not that good if we can't do the full CTS, or to you mean > that CLI isn't that good in general?
I think I was mainly thinking about the full CTS thing, but there are other reasons: I am probably wrong, but I remain concerned that due to the abundance of safe CLI languages, there's no place for BitC. The main advantage of BitC over F# is representation control, but I don't see a lot of .NET developers _that_ interested in the good old-fashioned constant factor performance. Abstractions for concurrency and parallelism seem more important for success in that environment. This is of course speculation. Is part of the reason to begin with a CLI backend that, in order to create a new type system compatible with CTS, you want to try it out in practice? That would make sense even if the primary target is eventually going to be LLVM and native code. Mono's LLVM backend doesn't really help as it uses JIT compilation and the executables require the Mono runtime anyway. General CLI -> native compilation isn't really possible due to reflection. Do you consider to separate the interop part of the type system? _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
