On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM, David Jeske <[email protected]> wrote:
> While reading the Rust spec, I can't help but desire a language which is > Rust, but with a standard C-style memory model. > If you want the C memory model, stick with C. A language that *purports* to give type safety, and then uses the C memory model, is far worse than a language that makes no pretenses. I can see a case for a language with better generics/polymorphism and a bunch of power tools like that, but in practice it's surprising how often those don't generalize correctly without GC - especially when the language admits value types. > C++ to C interface is challenged by exceptions and method-type-overloading > + name-mangling > The name mangling, in practice, is a complete non-issue. The exception problem is a much bigger problem*,* and not just for the boundary between C++ and C. Similar problems arise when Scheme calls C, for example. And it gets *really* bad if <language> calls C which then makes a callback to <Language>. That's a *serious* hairball. :-) I'm thinking of something which is more of a direct C model, but with... > A lot of your list is certainly doable. For the problems that I'm interested to solve, a language without safe memory management just isn't useful. I'm actually very disturbed that somebody might build the language you describe. From a computer security perspective, C and C++ are part of the problem we need to conclusively eliminate. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
