True. Again, there are two opposing forces: compatibility versus improvement. Sometimes it is very hard or even impossible to improve system without breaking compatibility.
What i don't see, is how things which lying in front of us are related to any sort of academia research. They are completely practical: - improve event handling - move to new file system - provide better FFI - new compiler and so on. You know, Janko, polishing makes sense if you have something which looks fine and you know that it will serve you well in future. But polishing things which were lying broken in garage for years makes little sense. People might mistakenly think that we wanna change things solely for the sake of change. But it is not like that. We need these changes , need to fix our infrastructure, because without solid basement you cannot build anything good. On 21 February 2012 22:30, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi janko > >> More polishing and boring bug hunting tasks therefore and just a bit >> less fundamental rewritings like compiler etc. > > Did you ever look at one bug entry? > You see the bug entry does not magically empty itself. There are people like > me and marcus > and a couple of others that are looking at reports, producing fixes... > >> Later are more academic and more interesting, yes, but IMHO for us the >> "enterprise" users the >> above priorities are much more important. > > Well this is not true: > - if you want to build the next generation of code coverage tools > - better tools > - without a good compiler we can also say bye bye to the next > generation of optimization > do not think that Cog is the end of the story. It is just the start. > > then you need to be able to understand the code and be able to fix it. > So the compiler is important. > > Stef -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
