From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2002-09-30T01:06:24+09:00
Subject: Re: R

On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 08:40:27PM +0900, Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
> Hmm. I would personally be loath to not have a GC.

Then it could be made optional, and better yet, selected at runtime.

> >  * have lower-level classes (perhaps as literal values) for low-level
> >    arrays and such stuff, thus having C-like types wrapped in real
> >    classes (otherwise we end up with C w/ different syntax)
> 
> Hmm. One thing I would really like to keep is "everything is an object".

Yes, "everything is an object" but arrays, hashes and such can't work
exactly like Ruby's current ones if the GC and the class model aren't
the same. And either templates (parametric polymorphism?) or type-casts
are needed if we want it to be statically typed.

As for low-level classes for Byte, Word, DoubleWord, etc, they would be
"normal" classes for the programmer, but the compiler would have to be
clever enough to optimize operations on them. And the same way we make
hashes with '{ }' and arrays with '[ ]' in Ruby, it'd be nice to have
some way to define Byte, Word, etc... values. It could be stolen from C.

> > It could also be procedural (not OOP), but being able to create classes
> 
> Hmm. I was definitely thinking OO. For first draft maybe without
> inheritance, to sidestep all the method lookup issues and avoid complexity
> in the beginning.
> 
> >  * allowing generic programming (so we don't miss Ruby's dynamic
> >    typing too much)
> 
> What do you mean by this? Like so?
> 
> def Boolean compare(Comparable a, Comparable b)
>   a == b
> end

Kinda, I was thinking of C++ templates or Eiffel's generic classes.

> 
> 
> > Things to throw away:
> 
> >  * high-level classes such as Array, Hash, Class, etc (in fact (almost)
> >    all of Ruby's!)
> 
> The existence of Class would depend on the class model, but getting rid of
> Array and Hash sounds like a bad idea: the lack of such is 90% of the pain
> of C.

I mean Ruby's current classes. They'd have to be thought out again. Of
course we want these classes, but we wouldn't be able to take Ruby's and
use them right away.

Anyway I don't see clearly what problem
the-non-existent-language-formerly-known-as-R is solving.

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
  
* LG loves czech girls.
<vincent> LG: do they have additional interesting "features" other girls don't have? ;)
	-- #Debian