Matt - Thanks for the very well-worded and clear response. Of course we can't speak for Shap, but I can see those two well-reasoned perspectives well in your explanation. I don't know if you anticipated this or not, but I have one objection..
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: > If you want a typesafe runtime to replace C, then you are essentially > saying we should write all programs on top of some fixed runtime. > Yes. That runtime would evolve over time, but yes. > In other words, as I see it, you are asking for compromise. > But you have argued yourself that essentially people turn to C (live > dangerously) when they find the compromise option to be unacceptable, > currently because of GC pauses. > I object to this. I do not believe people turn to C to avoid compromise. If so they would always turn to assembler. I believe they turn to C because it offers an improvement in programmer productivity in exchange for a linear-performance degregation. The problem with GC pausing is not that it is a compromise, that problem is that it's non-linear. IMO, by eliminating this non-linearity, we would provide a runtime which was strictly preferred in all but the most extreme cases. (i.e. the same situations that turn to assembler today)
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
