On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:37 AM, William ML Leslie <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 22/08/2013 8:14 PM, "Matt Rice" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:34 AM, William ML Leslie >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> My conclusion is that we should continue to evolve one or two very >> >> capable >> >> cross-language runtimes, like CLR, because things are easier if we only >> >> have >> >> one managed runtime in the mix. >> >> My opinion is that a cross-language runtime is undesirable, It's >> difficult enough to understand multi-person software projects when its >> all written in a single language. > > But we are talking about the platform that bitc bootstraps off, and how that > affects interface stability. You can start from scratch, or you can start > from an existing system, doing the latter likely makes it multi-language by > definition.
except it's more like you can start from scratch, and you can start from an existing system in order to delay starting from scratch into the future to reduce the initial overhead. I don't understand how this jumps to continuing to evolve common language runtimes, when that adds overhead onto a system that will be replaced, and where any non bitc component in the system self defeats, unless we are talking about reducing the amount of shoehorn overhead... _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
