fp.

So it looks like it restricts the memory management to 100% scope based. I expect that makes a lot of designs for programs not translate to it as well as they fit in Rust or Java (for example). There are a bunch more constraining design choices they list further down:

> - Nothing ever moves

> - ... A string, an array of strings, a record with variable-size fields and an array of those records are each one contiguous block with no pointer in it

I'll have to look a bit deeper to decide if it's feasible to write many things in this language.

bobbydigitales•6m ago

What kinds of things do you think might not translate well?

tombert•3m ago

Not the OP, but I'm thinking about like closures?

Say you wanted to make a Node.js framework with callbacks that react to an event. The callback might be a closure that captured some of its surrounding variables. At that point, any of the captured variables are not trivially stack-allocated.

You might be able to do something similar to what Rust does with moving though.

skew-aberration•42s ago

You could predefine your event handlers within your context, then call 'enter framework' and pass your event handlers as arguments. this is continuation passing style

skew-aberration•2m ago

You could write everything if you refactor to continuation passing style

dadoum•20m ago

I am researching a similar idea but which allowed moves if the compiler was able to fix the resulting structure, but mine will probably stay a small side project for a long time.