I need to go look at Rust again in its current form, but based on what I know about it's foundations, I'm dubious. Given LLVM, and the fact that we'd be removing the hard parts from BitC, I'm not convinced about your time estimate.
But as I say, I should go look. On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Bennie Kloosteman <[email protected]>wrote: > It would be nice to see Bitc happening. > > However considering you need to do a complete overhaul for Bitc ( > rewrite compiler , write a GC then make it mature) , it may be best > to consider Rust as an option unless the driver project is huge . It > is supported , modular , integrates well with c and modern and if you > want to make some changes ,well its open source. > > Biggest issues with Rust would be > > -basic GC ( better than boehmgc though) > -no natural numbers to avoid bounds checking > - relatively poor standard lib that needs an overhaul for traits ( > though i like there strings) . > - The type system does not lend itself to a jit , due to slow compiles > though compile on install is viable. > - Its style is non shared safe pointers through regions, with GC just > for shared pointers. > > Unless you can devote say 4-5 full timers to the language than even a > new Bitc would be best to start with Rust and get the ball rolling. > > Ben > > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > gain to have a project for which I need a modern, extensible language, so > > I'm considering whether it is possible to resurrect BitC in some form. > The > > main issues were: > _______________________________________________ > 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
