Re:Go 1.3+ Compiler Overhaul
by charlieflowers on Thursday December 19, 2013 @09:43AM
(#6934877)
You're right, it is high on imagination and low on delivery. It's a looooong way from being concrete and actionable.
I can't step it up just yet -- all I have right now is the question, which I pose as a thought experiment.
This conversation is more akin to some physicists speculating on the limits of efficiency of solar cells, than some engineers talking about a concrete plan of action.
>>In other words, I think this might be the killer feature that allows one programming language to outcompete most others.
> This sentence alone is flagrant ignorance.
Not really ... it's just awkward wording on my part. I don't really believe this will lead to the One True Language to Rule Them All. I was just trying to say that it might be well worth sacrificing on certain language features in order to maximize refactorability.
So ... I don't agree with you, but I do appreciate you leaving a comment.
I can't step it up just yet -- all I have right now is the question, which I pose as a thought experiment.
This conversation is more akin to some physicists speculating on the limits of efficiency of solar cells, than some engineers talking about a concrete plan of action.
>>In other words, I think this might be the killer feature that allows one programming language to outcompete most others.
> This sentence alone is flagrant ignorance.
Not really ... it's just awkward wording on my part. I don't really believe this will lead to the One True Language to Rule Them All. I was just trying to say that it might be well worth sacrificing on certain language features in order to maximize refactorability.
So ... I don't agree with you, but I do appreciate you leaving a comment.