[bitc-dev] White space
krismicinski at gmail.com
Mon Aug 9 10:52:10 PDT 2010
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap at eros-os.org>wrote:
> 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
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was the main idea in functional
languages. As long as we can keep composition I think it'll be well.
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 state.
Okay, thanks for the insight as to the direction. I wasn't sure of this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitc-dev