On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:13 AM, 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. > > > You're right, but then there's legacy code. > > CLR picks an interesting position, because it at least has a common type > system across all languages. If you squint your eyes really hard, you could > almost argue that CLR implements one language with a bunch of different > surface syntaxes. > > I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just talking out loud. The main issue, I > think, is that the more languages your developers have to know > simultaneously, the more expensive your dev, test, and maintenance costs > are. > > > shap > BTW i am often anoyed by the common language as it pulls back the language even .. especiallys the fact the runtime lib use int instead of uint everywhere. though it works. re multi language projects .. The fact that almost everything relies on c libs underneath means we do write in multi languages as is the case with shell/python scripts , shaders /SIMD and SQL to string it all together .. its just they have different roles and focus.. app devs dont modify open GL but its certainly an important part of their app. Many projects now have a scripting and lower level language ( face book PHP and C++) Ben
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
