Re: [Algorithms] Complexity of new hardware

[Nicholas \Indy\ R. <ar...@gm...>]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Pal-Kristian Engstad
<pal...@na...> wrote:
> Goal was a great system - one that we still greatly miss. If we had to make
> a Goal2, then we'd probably:
>
> Use an SML-ish or Scala-ish surface syntax, while trying to retain the power
> of Lisp macros.

Is there any reason you would choose against S-Expressions? I don't
know about Scala, but I find SML syntax to be a little less
maintainable for large systems and a lot less usable for Macros; Is
this mostly a choice of preference by the team, or perhaps you think
it'd be easier to get new employees to learn?

> Introduce stronger typing features, which is difficult, given the need for
> REPL and hot updates.
> Do more in terms of high-level optimization, though LLVM might negate the
> need for some of that.

LLVM is rather quite nice, and while it'll take some infrastructure,
and certainly a resident compiler instance, I don't suspect that hot
updates would be too much of a problem with a better typed (likely
type inferred) programming language.

Indy