Nimrod programming language

[rumpf_a at web.de]

> > That is already the case: The Pascal version is translated to Nimrod
> > and than compiles itself. Bootstrapping works.
>
> I meant why not get rid of the translation step and implement the
> compiler in idiomatic Nimrod.
>
Not until version 1.0 is out. This way the language can evolve more
easily.

> > The plan is to use LLVM as a backend and perhaps
> >http://tinystm.org/. Of course, this is only wishful thinking. ;-)
>
> Oh cool, I didn't know about tinystm.  But, my question about
> mutability is how you protect STM transactions when other threads can
> have references into shared mutable structures and clobber the
> referents.  GHC uses its type system to prevent that, but I don't see
> how Nimrod can really do the same, especially without GHC's rich set
> of immutable types including stuff like immutable maps.
>
Well STM transactions in an imperative context are still being
actively researched. Sorry I have no better answer.

> Have you ever looked at Tim Sweeney's presentation "The Next
> Mainstream Programming Language"?
Yes. It's awsome. But the next mainstream programming language also
needs a massive amount of money to take off, so I don't think it will
be Nimrod. :-)