On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: >> What is the urgent need BitC is addressing, and how are >> you ensuring that it actually addresses it? > > Not something I am discussing publicly, but it's been said that we need an > operating system done in a safe language.
A whole operating system, or just the kernel? It may be that I thought it used to just be intended for a kernel, which would be how I got confused. >> Does it need to be more than a stopgap? > > Yes. We anticipate committing millions of lines of code to BitC in > relatively short order. Once that's done we'll be living in BitC for a long > time. Sorry, stopgap is a loaded term. Almost every technology is eventually replaced. >> If BitC is deliberately a stopgap, then I suddenly >> understand where you're coming from better. > > It isn't about whether BitC is a stopgap. It's > about how many thousand dollars are being lost for every day that BitC being > unavailable is delaying other things. > > Matt: BitC isn't a research effort. It's a tool we desperately need for some > things we need to build. It's an explicit goal to minimize research in BitC, > except where research is required to solve an immediate problem. You are right. But a desperate need to avoid losing money is the kind of thing I meant. It would explain why you are averse to design possibilities that are not yet well understood. (That is, they require too much research.) Do I still not understand? _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
