3 ms·

ats , hmmm never heard of it, seems to have done really well, whats the catch?

• masklinn 11y ago
  If you read the original article[0] it did very well on the speed/size bench (5/5) but took a big hit on ease of writing (1/5) ending up with 48 between C# (47) and Haskell (49) and the following summary note: > Everything would be incredibly fast, but getting new contributors would be very difficult due to the learning curve. There’s a risk of crashes as the library is not entirely memory safe, and there are likely to be changes ahead to the language. Probably writing the whole thing in ATS would be too much work for anyone. ATS didn't make it to round 2[1] on grounds of use difficulty and difficulty of separating memory-safe and memory-unsafe code. That seems prescient as the original ATS1 (ATS/Anairiats) was replaced by ATS2 (ATS/Postiats) a few months later, I don't know how compatible the two are but the FAQ puts ATS1 and ATS2 in different categories[2] [0] http://roscidus.com/blog/blog/2013/06/09/choosing-a-python-replacement-for-0install/ http://roscidus.com/blog/blog/2013/06/09/choosing-a-python-r... [1] http://roscidus.com/blog/blog/2013/06/20/replacing-python-round-2/ http://roscidus.com/blog/blog/2013/06/20/replacing-python-ro... [2] https://github.com/githwxi/ATS-Postiats/wiki/ATS-implementations#ats1 https://github.com/githwxi/ATS-Postiats/wiki/ATS-implementat...