[bitc-dev] White space
Jonathan S. Shapiro
shap at eros-os.org
Mon Aug 9 10:42:42 PDT 2010
2010/8/8 Kristopher Micinski krismicinski at gmail.com
> I think that aiming to make it look like c/c++ just because people would
> adapt for it might not work well.
> BitC *is* functional at the core, that's it's intent. As I understand the
> motivation was that current safe languages won't let you specify machine
> interaction, so BitC is "practical, low level, safe, sane, functional
That depends on what we mean by "functional". BitC is certainly not pure,
and has never intended to be.
> Did you mean we might later introduce currying syntax? Currying is at the
> core of functional languages, I don't think it should be removed.
Since it isn't there now, it's not a question of removing it. And currying
is *not* at the core of functional languages; functional composition is.
There are many fine ways to provide that without adopting currying as the
> Along the same lines, making the syntax close to c would mislead people.
> BitC *isn't* C, and it doesn't behave like C. Mutable state is not the
> prevailing paradigm...
Actually, I expect that mutable state *will* be the prevailing paradigm. One
of the main reasons for *doing* BitC was first-class support for mutable
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitc-dev