HURD to be powered by Nomads

I think that the BitC language is very nearly functionally complete at this point. Still some details getting cleaned up. There are more things I want to do, most importantly adding an annotation mechanism, but none of the things I want to do are "core". We also have a few outstanding detail issues. The biggest one is monotonic initialization.

>From a *research* perspective, however, I think BitC is potentially useful as a vehicle allowing us to do direct comparative evaluations of programming idioms using the same compilation tool chain. So far as I know, the following statements are true today:

  1. Every valid ML program has a direct transcription to BitC except where row type extension is performed. This style of type extension is something that BitC has intended to support all along.

  2. Every valid Haskell program *would* have a direct transcription to BitC *if* BitC provided support for monads.

This leads me to the question: should we add the monad concept to BitC? It would give us a language providing a fully complete and continuous range of expressiveness from purely stateful to purely functional by choosing different subset languages.

So:

  1. Should we do this?
  2. How complex it is?

shap

Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
[...]
This leads me to the question: should we add the monad concept to BitC?

As an alternative, there is now even a Haskell dialect with an effect system in place of monads:

http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/DDC

Sandro

HURD to be powered by Nomads
Reading this aloud was a big mistake also I invented that meme.

>>2

DDC Disciple Center

a does doesn't (2.5 (2.5 do do

Newer Posts

---

Don't change these.

Name:		Email:
Entire Thread Thread List