Re: [friam] Object Capabilities in Scala ^WGo

Mark Miller

unread,

to Jae Kwon, fr...@googlegroups.com, Discussion of E and other capability languages, Kenton Varda

Hi Jae,

Three of us have now received dismissive rejections by those in control of Go. The three do not include myself. I don't know Go well enough to become another strong voice. However, even if I gained the needed Go expertise, I have no reason to expect not to get a fourth dismissive rejection.

Even if your ultimate goal is to see Go changed so that Gocap is a supported ocap subset of Go, I see no downside to first forking the language. If your language is both better, and Go-like enough to port many old Go programs and programmers, then it can become its own success. The existence of such a fork, or even its prospect, brings a new kind of pressure to bear, which is complementary to the pressures applied by arguments and advocacy.

Long live Gocap! I wish you luck.

to e-lang

Thank you for the support, Mark!  It means a lot coming from you.

We will develop Hog, a fork of Go, with various modifications to make it safer, and especially suitable for various blockchain applications.  (vs "GoCap" which could be a trademark violation)

Long live object capabilities and least security architecture!

to e-lang

least *authority.

lol.  I should not have the authority to message a mailing list without getting it reviewed.