> > That is already the case: The Pascal version is translated to Nimrod > > and than compiles itself. Bootstrapping works. > > I meant why not get rid of the translation step and implement the > compiler in idiomatic Nimrod. > Not until version 1.0 is out. This way the language can evolve more easily.
> > The plan is to use LLVM as a backend and perhaps > >http://tinystm.org/. Of course, this is only wishful thinking. ;-) > > Oh cool, I didn't know about tinystm. But, my question about > mutability is how you protect STM transactions when other threads can > have references into shared mutable structures and clobber the > referents. GHC uses its type system to prevent that, but I don't see > how Nimrod can really do the same, especially without GHC's rich set > of immutable types including stuff like immutable maps. > Well STM transactions in an imperative context are still being actively researched. Sorry I have no better answer. > Have you ever looked at Tim Sweeney's presentation "The Next > Mainstream Programming Language"? Yes. It's awsome. But the next mainstream programming language also needs a massive amount of money to take off, so I don't think it will be Nimrod. :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
