From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <94760cd3c80e898a9e8fbb6e5f58e8fd@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:43:34 -0500
In-Reply-To: <775b8d190802171754k725b9696pdd7692590eaf731f@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 582acac2-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> how did this get past my erik filter?
>=20
> wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
>=20
> four out of four as expected.
>=20
> brucee

100% whinage.  0 justification.   0 information.  par for the course. =E2=
=98=BA

since you disagree, i assume you claim that limbo's the hammer and all
computing problems are nails.  i'd like to know why limbo's the right
thing to run, e.g., on a freescale hc08 microcontroller.  i'd also like t=
o know
why there is no performance penalty for running dis code over c.  do
you claim the garbage collection doesn't take any appreciable time?
and the there is no overhead dealing with limbo's runtime typechecking?
the inferno kernel i know about is written in c.  where's the limbo versi=
on?
how does one run a limbo program on a new architecture without porting
the runtime or jit?

- erik