On 13/03/2010 6:34 AM, Aleksi Nurmi wrote: > 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.
I think if BitC provided an equally safe yet more expressive verification mechanism, that at least backend people would use it. By this I mean, bringing more "unverifiable" CIL into the "verifiable" domain. For instance, verifiable CIL doesn't support unions where pointers overlap, where BitC can safely express such structure. If these type annotations were expressed as CIL metadata, ie. attributes, and a verification pass like Microsoft's verification tool could verify their safety, that would be ideal. I think most high-level BitC constructs can be expressed as ordinary verifiable CIL, it's just the low-level stuff which will be unverifiable. Sandro _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
