News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Linus vs C++, again. Parent comment

Re:Linus vs C++, again by stcredzero on Thursday June 10, 2010 @05:03PM (#1421671)
I started designing a language where you had lexically scoped "contexts" to specify the meanings of words. In general a package/library would be a context, and could declare its dependency on other contexts. Any words with conflicting interpretations would have to use its full global specifier to compile.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Linus vs C++, again by chromatic on Thursday June 10, 2010 @05:46PM (#1421850)
Perl does this, Perl 6 especially.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Linus vs C++, again by alnayyir on Thursday June 10, 2010 @06:31PM (#1421986)
Sadly x86/arm/mips/sparc/power processors aren't Perl machines and Perl6 thusly can't be used to make a kernel for a Unix derivative.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Linus vs C++, again by stcredzero on Thursday June 10, 2010 @07:31PM (#1422156)
One could probably get Scheme to do this and use it to make a kernel. But what would be the point of making it a Unix machine then? Make it a Scheme machine.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Linus vs C++, again by eru on Thursday June 10, 2010 @07:36PM (#1422174)
They aren't C machines, either. But I agree, that Perl is probably harder to compile to native code than C.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Linus vs C++, again by bdr on Thursday June 10, 2010 @06:53PM (#1422053)
Yes, I think we all wept when we first learned that.
[ Parent | on HN ]