This was discussed recently and has just been raised in terms of whether Bitc targets CLR or LLVM .
One option that was discussed a while ago was if we target the CLR we can 1) Use .NET libs 2) Allow an upgrade story for C# 3) .NET apps who want to do more lower level work . A lot of organisations use C# front end and C++ back end because of a few things C# cant do. 4) We will create a runtime which any .NET lib can use hence provide a better story for .NET on non wndows platforms since they are poorly served by mono. 5) Bitc libs could be used by existing apps. Obviously for some things we needed new CIL instructions . Your not going to encroach on Java as its served by Closure and Scala. Rust and a few others have a better C/C++ story as they allow the direct calling of c libs and keep a lot of the c style. One huge difference is Bitc (so far) provides a first class GP story , without esoteric lower level considerations. Interfaces and GC with inferred regions is a perfect example. So i see Bitc as more as bring advances in GP programming , simplification etc to low level programming . It will be an easy to use and read language but which can offer first rate lower level programming as well. Ben On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Nigel Williams <[email protected] > wrote: > Not quite a musing, but a language strategy idea. > > Clojure strikes me as a good example of viral-like language. It > insinuates itself into the Java-ecosystem and leverages all that epic > plumbing and library collateral, cherry-picking a bunch of good > language ideas to do many things better and wait to eventually > supplant Java from its habitat [1] > > Is it a plan for BitC that might move things along? if some questions > of language design are deferred and introduced once more experience is > gained? it seems to me that Rust and Go are taking this approach and > also co-habiting, mostly with C. > > Maybe BitC (and others) had this idea all along, but I'm noticing more > examples in recent times, wondering if a new trend or an old one being > re-vitalised. > > [1] on reflection, I want to avoid directly comparing Clojure and BitC > as arguably Clojure is an application-layer language whereas BitC is a > substrate language (like C, and bizarrely now C++) > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
