Would Tunes be interested in this Object manager...?

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

Marcus Petersson wrote:
> While the current object manager interface may be quite limited and
> arcane, not anywhere close to your reflective ideals, I hope to improve
> this with time. But perhaps it has to be limited, because you don't have
> the warm and cozy environment that a single language offers.

That's the problem. I wouldn't call it just cozy environment, though,
since it's
more like having one consistent semantics instead of many diverging
ones.
I't doable interfacing, say, Scheme to a C library. but if you want to
do
really a shared project, with things written in both languages, this
gets
really ugly, I think.
Having a single, nice semantics offers coziness, but also room for
compiler
optimization, and, most of all, safety (type and memory).

> While objects require memory, they are not just memory. Memory management
> is done underneath. The actual implementation will change with time, but
> this particular piece of the interface should not have to.

The idea is, that MM doesn't have to be done manually (or through
functions),
but transparently by the language, which guarantees you safety. If you
leave
it out, you allow all kinds of sneaky memory leaks and dangling pointers
(maybe)
into your system...
If you prefer static MM, though, you might take a look at the MLKit or
the Cyclone
C dialect, which use region-based systems (which sometimes are rather
conservative, though).

> Marcus

Ulrich