Simplicity, maybe? I think it's a shame that Dr. Xi's work on DML hasn't had more of an impact on other languages, but there's a cost to every feature, and as you note, ATS has a lot of features.
I've only read a few hundred lines of ATS code, and written none, so my opinion is worth horsefeathers, but the impression I got was that a rough predictor of unreadability is the square of the number of type system features used beyond basic ML. The example code for a function that provably sorts its input list is cool in theory but (at least to my untrained eyes) impenetrable in practice. On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 7:56 AM, William Leslie <[email protected] > wrote: > I have been considering BitC's goals recently and wondering if they > might be fulfilled by the language ATS. > > ATS has good compilers, a reasonably trendy syntax (similar to Agda), > and the best C integration I've seen in a long time. It also has a > fairly low-level view of data types and mutation, closures, as well as > dependent types, linear types, and even an interactive proof system. > > What does BitC provide that ATS doesn't? > > -- > William Leslie > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
