[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? :-)
Cheers,
Rhys.
- [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, Rhys Weatherley, 2002/03/05
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, David Sugar, 2002/03/06
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, Rhys Weatherley, 2002/03/06
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, Tim TerlegÄrd, 2002/03/06
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers,
Rhys Weatherley <=
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, Jonathan P Springer, 2002/03/06
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, Hans-Olof Danielsson, 2002/03/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, Rhys Weatherley, 2002/03/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, Gopal.V, 2002/03/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, Chris Smith, 2002/03/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, Jonathan P Springer, 2002/03/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, Michael Khaw, 2002/03/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, John, 2002/03/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, Norbert Bollow, 2002/03/07
- Re: [DotGNU]Inferno Papers, Rhys Weatherley, 2002/03/07