Domen, I think this evolved from why perl -> c++ not perl -> X. Not sure this went to nix -> X. But if decision was already made that c++ is the one, probably discussion is over :)?
2015-12-31 11:13 GMT+00:00 Domen Kožar <do...@dev.si>: > I really don't see a correlation between rewriting perl parts in C++ and > why/how we should rewrite Nix in a different language. Could we separate > the threads? > > > Mateusz, did you get an answer to your questions to be able to start > contributing? > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:05 PM, stewart mackenzie <setor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Language features of the implementation language are generally lost when >> implementing a new language. >> >> So we are left with: "can be compiled and existing infrastructure." >> >> Leveraging LLVM would be astute. >> >> On 31 Dec 2015 21:47, "Tomasz Czyż" <tomasz.c...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Why not haskell? >> > >> > It's functional (like nix), can be compiled, in nixos, there is already >> infrastructure for it. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nix-dev mailing list >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> >> > -- Tomasz Czyż
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev