[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers

From: Rhys Weatherley
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 09:51:40 +1000

Tim TerlegÄrd wrote:

> > Dis is kind of interesting: it's an abstract register machine.
> > I think the same affect can be achieved in DotGNU with IL
> > plus an appropriate set of libraries to handle lists, tuples,
> > channels, etc.
> Why not add these as C# classes?

There's two ways of looking at this:

1. Add Limbo language support to pnet, together with
   whatever support libraries are needed.
2. Augment pnetlib with interesting classes that
   support distributed application development, using
   Limbo as a guide to the features that are required.

I presume that you are referring to the latter.  That's
certainly worth pursuing.

The nice thing about IL is that it supports multiple
languages by default: Limbo modules would be visible
as C# classes, so C# can access all Limbo features.
And vice versa.

Oh, BTW, if we do add Limbo language support, we
can't call it "Limbo" because of trademark issues.
How does "Leembo" sound as an alternative? :-)



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]