Re^5: Modernizing the Postmodern Language?

in reply to Re^4: Modernizing the Postmodern Language?
in thread Modernizing the Postmodern Language?

but now, there are lots of mature, efficient and feature rich runtimes you can reuse: .Net, JVM, MoarVM, etc.

Isn't the problem always reference counting vs. tracing gc, though? If you expect DESTROY to run when your objects go out of scope, for example, most gc runtimes won't destruct objects in a timely fashion and I think some won't call destructors at all. I want to say dotNET core got rid of finalizers, for example.

But regardless of details, I agree that runtime-independence is the kind of aspirational thing that would make the pain of retiring XS worth it.

Comment on Re^5: Modernizing the Postmodern Language? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Modernizing the Postmodern Language? by salva (Canon) on Jul 02, 2020 at 15:15 UTC
Isn't the problem always reference counting vs. tracing gc, though? Yes, you have to choose between deterministic destruction or garbage collection. Languages with garbage collection usually provide a `with` construction (that I think comes from LISP). Nowadays it seems that everybody (or at least, most language designers) admits that having a proper garbage collector is something so good that it well worths the trouble of requiring those `with` guards.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: Modernizing the Postmodern Language?
by salva (Canon) on Jul 02, 2020 at 15:15 UTC

Isn't the problem always reference counting vs. tracing gc, though?

Yes, you have to choose between deterministic destruction or garbage collection.

Languages with garbage collection usually provide a with construction (that I think comes from LISP).

Nowadays it seems that everybody (or at least, most language designers) admits that having a proper garbage collector is something so good that it well worths the trouble of requiring those with guards.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Meditations