[bitc-dev] Retrospective Thoughts on BitC

David Jeske davidj at gmail.com
Mon Apr 16 09:31:14 PDT 2012


On Apr 16, 2012 7:53 AM, "William ML Leslie" <william.leslie.ttg at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Apologies: it seems that dependency ordering is used by default,
> according to dlsym() documentation.  So the big ugly flat untyped
> namespace you *think* you get when writing C is only an illusion.
> Good times all round.

Yes... now compare that with python or java, where neither source or
compiled code includes any version information.

Perhaps we are using the wrong term when talking about 'binary
compatibility'... perhaps we should be using the term 'machine version
dependency resolution'... c shared libraries and CIL can do it, afaik no
other system can. Imo this is a big fault that needs to be fixed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.coyotos.org/pipermail/bitc-dev/attachments/20120416/98f4231f/attachment.html 


More information about the bitc-dev mailing list