On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 09:20 -0700, Brad Chamberlain wrote: > > […] > It's worth noting that, in developing Chapel, we thought a lot about > how > to make it a good language to write a compiler (with parallel > analysis > passes) in, and I believe that, modulo our current issues with > records and > strings, that it generally would be. While I agree that I wouldn't > want > to write 'chpl' in Fortran, Chapel is not Fortran. If we had the > funding > and mandate to rewrite 'chpl' in Chapel, I'd do it in a > heartbeat. But I > think it's unlikely that anyone outside of the "Is your PL as macho > as > mine?" circles would care much...
The Go people were tired of the constraints of C as much as having to be self-hosting because of the claim to be a C replacement. Marketing very important in this one. Rust has a similar line really "system programming language so must be able to do a compiler so proof of concept do the Rust compiler". Resourcing is clearly an issue, the Go folk and Rust folk made it happen by getting consent from the holders of the purse strings for the resourcing. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Chapel-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-developers
