General discussions of Cyclone, a safe dialect of C

Geoffrey Alan Washburn | 24 Nov 2006 19:20

Re: Vitality of Cyclone?

Geoffrey Alan Washburn wrote:

Indeed. The fact that the language itself isn't an area of active research means that it is actually ripe for mainstream acceptability because a wider audience can focus on improving the tools because the theory behind them is no longer evolving. Perhaps someone could look at whether Cyclone could be integrated with the GNU compiler collection.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever talked with the GNU compiler folks about this? I figured I would ask just in case it has already been determined that this is too hard of a sell.

-- [Geoff Washburn|geoffw <at> cis.upenn.edu|http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~geoffw/]

<div>
Geoffrey Alan Washburn wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:453C16AE.6070509 <at> cis.upenn.edu" type="cite">

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Indeed.&nbsp; The fact that the language itself isn't an area of active
research means that it is actually ripe for mainstream acceptability
because a wider audience can focus on improving the tools because the
theory behind them is no longer evolving.&nbsp; Perhaps someone could look
at whether Cyclone could be integrated with the GNU compiler collection.<br>
</blockquote>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Out of curiosity, has anyone ever talked with the GNU compiler
folks about this?&nbsp; I figured I would ask just in case it has already
been determined that this is too hard of a sell.<br><br>-- 
[Geoff Washburn|<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:geoffw <at> cis.upenn.edu">geoffw <at> cis.upenn.edu</a>|<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~geoffw/">http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~geoffw/</a>]

</div>

headers

Gabriel Dos Reis | 24 Nov 2006 20:18

Re: Vitality of Cyclone?

Geoffrey Alan Washburn <geoffw <at> cis.upenn.edu> writes:

| Geoffrey Alan Washburn wrote:
| >     Indeed.  The fact that the language itself isn't an area of
| > active research means that it is actually ripe for mainstream
| > acceptability because a wider audience can focus on improving the
| > tools because the theory behind them is no longer evolving.  Perhaps
| > someone could look at whether Cyclone could be integrated with the
| > GNU compiler collection.
|     Out of curiosity, has anyone ever talked with the GNU compiler
| folks about this?

Greg and I briefly discussed this possibility.
I'm very much interested in the successor (Tempest).

-- Gaby

headers

LiteStar numnums | 24 Nov 2006 22:45

Re: Vitality of Cyclone?

Speaking of Tempest & the like, has anyone played with M$'s Vault? I
ask here because I'm looking for people who have an impression of
both.
Cheers,
 -- LS

On 24 Nov 2006 20:18:00 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<gdr <at> integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> Geoffrey Alan Washburn <geoffw <at> cis.upenn.edu> writes:
>
> | Geoffrey Alan Washburn wrote:
> | >     Indeed.  The fact that the language itself isn't an area of
> | > active research means that it is actually ripe for mainstream
> | > acceptability because a wider audience can focus on improving the
> | > tools because the theory behind them is no longer evolving.  Perhaps
> | > someone could look at whether Cyclone could be integrated with the
> | > GNU compiler collection.
> |     Out of curiosity, has anyone ever talked with the GNU compiler
> | folks about this?
>
> Greg and I briefly discussed this possibility.
> I'm very much interested in the successor (Tempest).
>
> -- Gaby
>
> --
> cyclone-l mailing list  ::  cyclone-l <at> lists.cs.cornell.edu
> https://lists.cs.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/cyclone-l
>

-- 
If work and leisure are soon to be subordinated to this one utopian
principle -- absolute busyness -- then utopia and melancholy will come
to coincide: an age without conflict will dawn, perpetually busy --
and without consciousness.

 -- Günter Grass

--

-- 
cyclone-l mailing list  ::  cyclone-l <at> lists.cs.cornell.edu
https://lists.cs.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/cyclone-l

headers

Daniel C. Wang | 26 Nov 2006 07:07

Re: Vitality of Cyclone?

It's been a while since I looked at Vault, but last time I did I found 
that it relied too much on lineaity/uniquness. Overall, I'd say Cyclone 
is a more pragmatic design with a larger more tested code base of real apps.

LiteStar numnums wrote:
> Speaking of Tempest & the like, has anyone played with M$'s Vault? I
> ask here because I'm looking for people who have an impression of
> both.
> Cheers,
>  -- LS
>
> On 24 Nov 2006 20:18:00 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
> <gdr <at> integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>   
>> Geoffrey Alan Washburn <geoffw <at> cis.upenn.edu> writes:
>>
>> | Geoffrey Alan Washburn wrote:
>> | >     Indeed.  The fact that the language itself isn't an area of
>> | > active research means that it is actually ripe for mainstream
>> | > acceptability because a wider audience can focus on improving the
>> | > tools because the theory behind them is no longer evolving.  Perhaps
>> | > someone could look at whether Cyclone could be integrated with the
>> | > GNU compiler collection.
>> |     Out of curiosity, has anyone ever talked with the GNU compiler
>> | folks about this?
>>
>> Greg and I briefly discussed this possibility.
>> I'm very much interested in the successor (Tempest).
>>
>> -- Gaby
>>
>> --
>> cyclone-l mailing list  ::  cyclone-l <at> lists.cs.cornell.edu
>> https://lists.cs.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/cyclone-l
>>
>>     
>
>
>

headers

Geoffrey Alan Washburn | 27 Nov 2006 14:50

Re: Vitality of Cyclone?

Daniel C. Wang wrote:

It's been a while since I looked at Vault, but last time I did I found that it relied too much on lineaity/uniquness.

Is it even under development anymore? The web page hasn't been updated in five years?

Overall, I'd say Cyclone is a more pragmatic design with a larger more tested code base of real apps.

Right, which is why I felt that attempting to integrate Cyclone into GCC might be a good place to start. While I expect Tempest will be great, it is probably years away from being as robust as Cyclone. While I can't claim to think like a C programmer (at least not any more), I expect Cyclone would hopefully be a more approachable stepping stone as well.

-- [Geoff Washburn|geoffw <at> cis.upenn.edu|http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~geoffw/]

<div>
Daniel C. Wang wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:45692F11.4020207 <at> cs.princeton.edu" type="cite">
  It's been a while since I looked at Vault, but last time I did I found 
that it relied too much on lineaity/uniquness. 
</blockquote>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Is it even under development anymore?&nbsp; The web page hasn't been
updated in five years?<br><br><blockquote cite="mid:45692F11.4020207 <at> cs.princeton.edu" type="cite">
  Overall, I'd say Cyclone 
is a more pragmatic design with a larger more tested code base of real apps.

  
</blockquote>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Right, which is why I felt that attempting to integrate Cyclone
into GCC might be a good place to start.&nbsp; While I expect Tempest will
be great, it is probably years away from being as robust as Cyclone.&nbsp;
While I can't claim to think like a C programmer (at least not any
more), I expect Cyclone would hopefully be a more approachable stepping
stone as well.<br><br>-- 
[Geoff Washburn|<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:geoffw <at> cis.upenn.edu">geoffw <at> cis.upenn.edu</a>|<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~geoffw/">http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~geoffw/</a>]

</div>