From: entropy@farviolet.com
Date: Thu Feb 02 2006 - 08:44:51 MST
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Kevin Osborne wrote:
>> Have you looked at Alice, from Stanford University? Still in the early
>> stages, but it looks like it supports parallelism in a quite interesting
>> fashion. Check out "Promises". Nice!
>
> will do; though new/experimental languages have certain advantages
> (evolution says they'll be better) they also have certian
> disadvantages; like the necessity to write your own API modules for
> solved problems (sorts, collections, tcp/ip, unicode, math, remoting,
> etc) - this is not to say that any newer-language-of-your-choice
> doesn't have some or all of these features; but does in have
> http://cpan.org/authors/id/D/DC/DCANTRELL/Acme-Scurvy-Whoreson-BilgeRat-1.0.readme
> ? :-)
One problem with most experimental languages is that they arn't compiled,
or if are don't have the low level access to the machine that C++ does.
I say C++ because the inline methods/functions give you high level
abstract code that can compile directly down to an instruction or two of
assembly. GCC these days is quite good at peeling away the layers of
abstraction. For example an inline getter/setter method usually produces
exactly the same code that a direct assignment does.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT