This is not the only case. It harms not only performance, but also conformance, e.g. https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/t/unable-to-move.... Microsoft is stupid enough since the first decision of the…
This is technically incorrect. A programming language can be designed with specification in mind, even with a formal one (e.g. SML). It is just true that the specification is not likely effectively verified before more…
There are simply lacking of such strong requirements in language standards. C/C++ even have the specific "linkage" concept to abstract the binary details under the source form away. And you may know, many libraries are…
It's about the ability, not the reality. As Racket, the base language can have no explicit rules for any type systems to be embedded. There can be more powerful candidates, e.g. Kernel:…
I'd like to continue to develop something based on vau calculi with some forms of partial evaluators, since I have lost interest in type theories.
There are too many things to be improved, e.g. support of simple (enough) cases w/o any scriptish code, getting away of stupid syntaxes (like distinctions of indents with TABs vs. spaces) in makefiles, avoiding being…
This is simply not acceptable because it would silently break too much code. Parameter passing in C++ used to mean copy, not move. Perhaps a more important rule is that id-expressions should mean lvalues, not xvalues.…
Dynamic scopes are not available in C++. I suppose them as in languages like Emacs Lisp. I get the point, though.
It isn't. Quoted from the C++ standard: "the asm declaration is conditionally-supported; its meaning is implementation-defined". ISO C does not differ much in conformance (the asm keyword is common extension listed in…
This is not the only case. It harms not only performance, but also conformance, e.g. https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/t/unable-to-move.... Microsoft is stupid enough since the first decision of the…
This is technically incorrect. A programming language can be designed with specification in mind, even with a formal one (e.g. SML). It is just true that the specification is not likely effectively verified before more…
There are simply lacking of such strong requirements in language standards. C/C++ even have the specific "linkage" concept to abstract the binary details under the source form away. And you may know, many libraries are…
It's about the ability, not the reality. As Racket, the base language can have no explicit rules for any type systems to be embedded. There can be more powerful candidates, e.g. Kernel:…
I'd like to continue to develop something based on vau calculi with some forms of partial evaluators, since I have lost interest in type theories.
There are too many things to be improved, e.g. support of simple (enough) cases w/o any scriptish code, getting away of stupid syntaxes (like distinctions of indents with TABs vs. spaces) in makefiles, avoiding being…
This is simply not acceptable because it would silently break too much code. Parameter passing in C++ used to mean copy, not move. Perhaps a more important rule is that id-expressions should mean lvalues, not xvalues.…
Dynamic scopes are not available in C++. I suppose them as in languages like Emacs Lisp. I get the point, though.
It isn't. Quoted from the C++ standard: "the asm declaration is conditionally-supported; its meaning is implementation-defined". ISO C does not differ much in conformance (the asm keyword is common extension listed in…