[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Portability

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Me wrote:

(Argh, the twisted semantics again - I rephrase slightly)

The two approaches are not complementary at all. The approach taken
by this draft is to expose very many implementation
dependent details. And the authors basically justify this
with a) highly subjective (and IMHO incorrect) performance considerations
and b) by simply ignoring anything but simple-minded implementation
strategies. The alternative would
be to hide the details (either using extra indirections or mapping
argument/return values to C types, transparently, under full control
of the implementor, and (this is important) making *no* assumptions
about read/write-barriers, GC model, string representation, threading
model, etc.
My point is that all these issues *can* be addressed, not by specifying
each and every little detail, but by simple adding a layer of abstraction.