Re: es-discuss Digest, Vol 43, Issue 1

2010-09-02 Thread Leo Meyerovich
On Sep 2, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Erik Corry wrote: > 2010/9/2 Leo Meyerovich : >> There are use cases for enumeration like proper native GC in data flow >> abstractions > > Perhaps you could elaborate on this. I wasn't able to understand what > you meant by this. > I mean a natural embedding of

Re: es-discuss Digest, Vol 43, Issue 1

2010-09-02 Thread Erik Corry
2010/9/2 Leo Meyerovich : > There are use cases for enumeration like proper native GC in data flow > abstractions Perhaps you could elaborate on this. I wasn't able to understand what you meant by this. Btw. In case it isn't obvious I would rather avoid changes to the WeakMaps proposal that mak

Re: es-discuss Digest, Vol 43, Issue 1

2010-09-02 Thread Erik Corry
2010/9/2 Leo Meyerovich : >> >> I would strongly oppose any way to trigger a full garbage collection >> from JavaScript.  Experience from the Java world shows that it is >> inevitably abused with very serious performance consequences. > > > > Red herring, Perhaps I misunderstood. You wrote "For e

Re: es-discuss Digest, Vol 43, Issue 1

2010-09-02 Thread Leo Meyerovich
> > I would strongly oppose any way to trigger a full garbage collection > from JavaScript. Experience from the Java world shows that it is > inevitably abused with very serious performance consequences. Red herring, though JVM deployments seem like good examples of systems using advanced con

Re: es-discuss Digest, Vol 43, Issue 1

2010-09-02 Thread Erik Corry
2010/9/2 Leo Meyerovich : > > On Sep 2, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > >> On Sep 2, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Leo Meyerovich wrote: >> >>> That said, going back to the beginning: deterministic GC-independent >>> semantics are a Good Thing. Whether this matters seems to be a crucial >>> discuss

Re: es-discuss Digest, Vol 43, Issue 1

2010-09-02 Thread Leo Meyerovich
On Sep 2, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > On Sep 2, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Leo Meyerovich wrote: > >> That said, going back to the beginning: deterministic GC-independent >> semantics are a Good Thing. Whether this matters seems to be a crucial >> discussion. Is there a concern for basic

Re: es-discuss Digest, Vol 43, Issue 1

2010-09-02 Thread Brendan Eich
On Sep 2, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Leo Meyerovich wrote: > That said, going back to the beginning: deterministic GC-independent > semantics are a Good Thing. Whether this matters seems to be a crucial > discussion. Is there a concern for basic correctness for more mundane code? > Are those use cases

Re: es-discuss Digest, Vol 43, Issue 1

2010-09-02 Thread Leo Meyerovich
The argument against introducing non-determinism (or GC-dependent determinism) from maybe a month ago seems much stronger than that of covert channels. A claim of a reasonable implementation of a production language to be free of covert channel is rather suspect. E.g., preventing covert communic