You can probably condense what I said to simply this quote from the Google project page:
"A malloc implementation is coming soon." :-) On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Kristopher Micinski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Srujan Kotikela <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I recently came across Deca. Sounds like an interesting programming >> language. It's comparison to BitC comes from the fact that it tries to solve >> the same problems as BitC: >> >> Systems programs operate in constrained memory. >> Systems programs are strongly driven by bulk I/O performance. >> Performance and data representation matter. >> Stateful programming is mandatory. >> User-managed storage is a requirement. >> >> However, it doesn't try to support the formal verification part. I was >> wondering to know how BitC developers see Deca as in comparison to BitC. >> What's the good/bad/ugly in Deca with respect to BitC goals. >> >> ~ SDK >> > > Writing a language is easy. Putting forth a set of goals that > everyone wants is also easy. The hard part is making the necessary > comprises in the implementation when it comes down to those goals > being fundamentally incompatible. Insofar as that, Deca is a project, > sure, but no more than any other model programming language > implementation. > > You have to understand that BitC was an idea that was elaborated upon > throughout years of development by a few people who were really > working to make it great. Deca, by comparison, is an undergraduate > thesis. These are vastly different things :-). While many of the > problems faced in Decas development were also faced in the development > of BitC, the devil is most certainly in the details. > > So basically, making a language is a lot more than writing down a type > system, writing up a compiler, sticking a GC on top, and marketing it. > For a system to really succeed there are a lot more practical things > to think about, and there is no evidence that this has been done in > Deca (or should be, making a good language is hard, takes lot of smart > people, translating into lots of money). > > As a counterpoint to your example, (although this isn't strictly > correct), Rust has also been cited as an example of a language solving > some of the problems that were seen in BitC's development.. > > kris _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
