On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:18 AM, William ML Leslie < [email protected]> wrote:
> All anyone really needs to be O(1) is the generation and the > application of offsets, for doing run-length encoding of font faces, > or pagination. Maybe and maybe not, but that isn't a *string* problem. > > And if you think benchmarks are not > > important look at what Linux benchmarks for linux style apps did to > > MicroKernels and the not so worthy contenders ( Minix , Herd and Mach) > > If it was the benchmarks that did it, the benchmarks (along with the > reliability benefits) would have been able to win people back. > Really, it was about hardware support (which is still *the* problem in > esoteric-os space). Umm. I think Jochen and I proved otherwise pretty convinclngly. The issues are more subtle than this. But it's a discussion for the Coyotos list, not the BitC list. > Where does BitC stand, Shap? Is having such a thing available from > the safe subset of the CLI critical to BitC, or are you comfortable > with unsafe, with machine-checkable proofs possible? Or is this > entirely wishlist? This entire discussion is so completely below the radar of anything important that I haven't given it any real thought.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
