On 03/02/2012 07:55, André Warnier wrote: > Caldarale, Charles R wrote: >>> From: David Kerber [mailto:dcker...@verizon.net] Subject: Re: >>> Regarding compatibility >> >>>>> It will be open source, right? >> >>>> Both open *and* closed source. >> >>> But you won't know which until you download it and open the package... >> >> Furry source... >> >> Are we all going to be entangled in this? >> > Mmm, that's an interesting thought. The DarkEnergy compiler should be > entangling. This way, any modification to the source will be > instantantly reflected in the object code (and all its copies), wherever > they are. No more updates to download, every installation forever > up-to-date etc. Think of the savings in bandwidth. > Makes the revision process a bit tricky though. > And need a disentangling backup utility.
Like it. DarkEnergy[TM] compiles to bytecode presumably? Seems everyone & their dog is inventing JVM languages, no reason why we can't. QLG is a hard problem to solve, so I'd expect the syntax to be more complex, than say, Scala. p -- [key:62590808]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
