Hello David, --On Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:00:57 PM +0000 David Rush <kumoy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given that massively parallel computing is already in reach of the > high-end desktop machine, and that it is soon going to arrive on much > lower spec machines, I think this is a massively valuable avenue of > research and could pay off big (although my bets are on Haskell for this > one). I have been dabbling in it (in a rather unfunded way :) for the > last year, actually. I also agree that this is a very important avenue of research. I also think that the solution will not be to make programs hard to reason about and understand in general, for the sake of simplifying one single line of reasoning, which is essentially what ICS seems to do. So, let's find another way of doing this. > As a standardization issue...well I'm definitely in the "less is more" > camp. But then again, I don't see standards as anything more than > semantically descriptive. They provide a way of concisely specifying what > one's implementation does and does not do. It wouldn't be a deal killer > for me in any dialect, and I could even see the point of including the > restriction in Thing 2. It does seem bad to have Thing1 restricted from > ICS. I think it would be quite important to have a simple semantics in Thing 1, and ICS would not have such a simple semantics. Removing that one restrictions adds a whole host of other things that could happen when running a program that makes a formal or even rigorous semantics hard. For a language particularly aimed at academic research that requires simplified semantics, that's not exactly helping things. Aaron W. Hsu _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
